Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GRAND UNION CANAL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Police Cars, London (Speed Limit Tests)

Captain Sir William Brass: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to satisfy himself that petrol is not wasted by the Metropolitan police in trailing vehicles over straight roads in order to obtain convictions for exceeding the statutory speed limits in war time; and whether he has instituted any quota regulations to be applied to police motorcars on this kind of duty.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): The petrol allocation of the Metropolitan Police Force is settled in relation to its duties as a whole, and the course suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend seems to me impracticable and undesirable.

Sir W. Brass: If the Minister has no power over the actual amount used for this purpose, will he make representations to the Chief Commissioner of Police to impress on his officers the need for saving fuel in war-time and not using fuel by trailing cars on open spaces such as Mitcham Common and Regent's Park?

Major Lloyd George: I am ready at all times to ask anybody to save petrol, but the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is outside my province.

Sir W. Brass: Do I understand that the Minister agrees that trailing cars on open spaces like Mitcham Common and Regent's Park is a waste of petrol in wartime?

Coal Gasification Experiments

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has made the promised inquiries as to the working of the large-scale plants in the Donetz Basin and elsewhere in Russia for the gasification of coal underground and as to the result of experiments in United States coalfields for the extraction by deep boring behind the coal-face of fire-damp for commercial uses?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, but the replies have not yet been received.

Sir P. Hurd: Is the Minister aware that the B.B.C. recently stated in the Scottish news service that experiments in the gasification of coal underground were now in progress in a Scottish mine, and can he give any information on the matter?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot without notice. I believe that a small experiment is being carried out, but this is a larger thing. As I promised the hon. Member some time ago, I will let him have the particulars as soon as they can possibly be obtained.

Windsor Races (Use of Petrol)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that nearly 200 taximeter-cabs helped to take the crowd to Windsor for the opening of the flat racing season, and what steps he proposes to take to prevent such waste of petrol?

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many motor-cars and taximeter-cabs were at the last Windsor races?

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of private motor cars, taximeter cabs, "drive yourself" and other hired motor vehicles, respectively, present in connection with the races at Windsor on 10th April?

Major Lloyd George: With the permission of my hon. Friends I will answer these questions together, in the light of information from the Windsor police authorities. The total number of taxi-cabs recorded as bringing visitors to the course on this occasion was 59. Of these 14 were licensed for the Borough of Windsor, and could legitimately make repeated trips between the railway station


and the course. This may have given an exaggerated impression of the total number. Of the 45 taxicabs licensed in other areas, all appear to have been within their "Permitted Areas" as defined in the Control of Motor Fuel Order, 1942, that is, they could legitimately bring visitors from their own area to the course, and take them back. The number of private cars and private hire-cars were not separately recorded: the total was 138. In a few cases the inquiries are not yet complete; in the remainder it is clear that the private hire-cars were operating in accordance with the terms of the Order, and that the private cars were those of owners, jockeys or other persons attending the course for business purposes for which an allowance had been duly authorised.

Major Lyons: In view of the Order to which the Minister has referred, although petrol is authorised for business purposes, was not other transport available which they could have used, and will the Minster take steps to put an end to this sort of thing, which is very much objected to by a number of persons who consider it should not exist in war-time?

Major Lloyd George: It is not for me to decide what should or should not exist in war-time; it is for this House. As long as this is allowed to continue, it is perfectly legitimate to use a taxicab to go there.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that only yesterday a man was prosecuted and fined for using a small car——

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question.

Temporary Mines Inspectors (Salaries)

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, whether he is aware that mining engineers to be appointed as colliery inspectors are to be paid between £400 and £550 per annum, depending upon their qualifications, while the new medical inspectors at collieries are to be paid at the rate of £1,000 per annum; and whether, in view of the fact that mining engineers are skilled technicians and to attract the best quality of men to this work, he will review the salary scale to be offered with a view to substantial improvement?

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend's Question appears to be based on a misapprehension. The salary paid to a junior temporary inspector cannot be compared with that paid to a mines medical officer, whose responsibilities extend over a whole Region. The scale of salaries in the Mines Inspectorate does not compare unfavourably with that adopted for the Mines Medical Service.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is the Minister satisfied that this very low income scale would, and does, attract the best type of man to the Mines Inspectorate?

Major Lloyd George: As the hon. Member probably knows, these are temporary appointments, and they are in the lowest grade referred to in the Question, but the salaries beyond that are, of course, very much higher. It is certainly my wish, at any rate, that financial things should not stand in the way of the very best men becoming available for this industry.

By-Elections (Petrol)

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make an investigation to make sure that petrol is not being used improperly on polling day in by-elections?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.

Colliery Canteens

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will take steps to arrange that in the Forest of Dean all pits having canteens with accommodation for serving light meals shall be able also to supply more substantial meals than at present, and that where this cannot be done, or where no canteen arrangements are made, extra rations shall be released to the miners direct?

Major Lloyd George: Provision for serving substantial meals at colliery canteens is made at the cost of the Miners' Welfare Commission wherever there is reasonable assurance that the number of customers s likely to be sufficient to pay for the cost of the meals. The Commission has had no reason to feel assured that this is so at Forest of Dean Collieries, but if my hon. Friend has any particular collieries in mind the cases will be specially investigated if he will let me have the names.
The latter part of the Question should be addressed to my noble Friend the Minister of Food.

Mr. Price: Does the Minister realise that the changes recommended in this Question would be bound to have a good effect on the general feeling in the collieries, and ultimately on production?

Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Member will let me have particulars, I shall be glad to look into them. We have made substantial progress in other parts of the country on this question.

Private Motor-Car Hire

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what action he has taken arising from the letter sent to him from Doncaster by a seaman now serving on a tanker, which among other evidence declares that a private hire motor-car is used by two people two or three times each week for a joy-ride of 20 miles in the country?

Major Lloyd George: I am making inquiry, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Walkden: Does not the Minister think it now time that the use of the hire service, and also taxi-cabs, to go to dog tracks should be stopped without delay, and is he aware that this is a general practice throughout the country?

Major Lloyd George: As I said in answer to the hon. and gallant Member below the Gangway, it has nothing to do with me. As long as these things are allowed by Parliament to continue, it is not for me to say that they should be stopped.

Mr. Shinwell: Cannot the Minister terminate the supply of petrol?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. As long as any occupation is legal it is not for me to stop the supply of petrol. I must carry out what Parliament decides.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister satisfied that his Department can afford the petrol, and if he is not, why does he not make representations to the proper quarter?

Major Lloyd George: If I were to give the figure of the consumption of petrol at the present time it would give the enemy quite a wrong impression of the state of things.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not asking the Minister to give any figure for the satisfaction of the enemy; I am asking

whether he can afford the petrol. Surely he can say "Yes" or "No"?

Major Lloyd George: "Yes" or "No" is not the proper answer, if I may with great respect say so to my hon. Friend. After all, the obvious thing to-day is to prevent all sorts of things so as to benefit the war effort, but he knows as well as I do that you cannot do without a certain amount of relaxation which must be had by the people of this country.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it not possible, in issuing the petrol to the Petroleum Officers, to specify the uses for which the petrol might be used, and therefore limit the supply?

Sir Herbert Williams: Does not the Minister think there are too many heresy hunters about?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO CANADA

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will see that only Members over military age are included in the proposed delegation of Members of the British Parliament to Canada?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): The selection of Members for inclusion in the Parliamentary Delegation to Canada is not a matter for my right hon. Friend but is made by a Committee over which Mr. Speaker presides.

Captain Duncan: In that case may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the point of view I put in my Question will be taken into consideration? It is supported, I understand, by a number of Members.

Mr. Granville: Will the Under-Secretary make representations, in view of the importance of French-Canadian feeling, to see that at least one member of this. Delegation speaks Ministerial French?

Commander Locker-Lampson: What is "military age"?

Mr. Price: Will the Under-Secretary make it clear that a decision rests with this House, not with the Government?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: That I accept.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR CIVIL AVIATION

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will take advantage of the visit of Dr. Evatt, the Australian Minister for External Affairs, to this country to discuss questions such as the future development of civil aviation and the setting up of a Commonwealth Air Board to reorganise the British Empire and Overseas Air Transport services?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: As has already been stated, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are in preliminary consultation with Dominion Governments on the general question of the future of civil aviation. During his stay in this country, Dr. Evatt, as Australian representative in the War Cabinet, will, of course, be available to take part in further discussions on the subject.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister without Portfolio (1) whether any assurances or undertakings have been given by the Government to any person or company with regard to post-war civil aviation;
(2) whether his attention has been directed to the preparation being made by transport companies to run civil air lines, and the Chancery Division of the High Court confirmation of an alteration in the objects of Elder's and Fyffe's to enable the company to carry passengers and fruit by air and the stated aim of the company to establish, maintain and work lines of aerial conveyance; and what is his attitude to this development;
(3) whether consultations have taken place over civil aviation with the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or any other countries; and can he make a statement on the Government's policy in the matter?

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): It is, I think, essential that we should ascertain what measure of international co-operation can be arrived at in regard to civil aviation before attempting to commit ourselves as to the best form of the national set-up. As a first step and before making our proposals in regard to international co-operation we desire to have the fullest consultation with the Dominion and Indian Governments to see if we can agree upon a common policy. These discussions are now actively pro-

ceeding. We hope on their conclusion to be in a position to formulate our proposals to other members of the United Nations. We shall not attempt to reach any conclusions with regard to the national setup until we have ascertained what measure of international co-operation is possible. In the meantime His Majesty's Government remain entirely uncommitted and have not given any assurances or undertakings. The fact that certain transport companies desire to run civil air lines is, of course, well known; and so long as it is plainly understood that His Majesty's Government are not committed we have no reason to object to any steps that such companies may find it convenient to take.

Mr. Granville: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer mean that the designing and production of civil air liners or prototypes are included in the discussions with other countries, as well as the air lines?

Sir W. Jowitt: I think if the hon. Gentleman will read the answer I have given, he will find it is quite clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Textile Machinery Exports

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of new and reconditioned textile machinery exported since the outbreak of war and the countries of destination?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Detailed information for 1939 and 1940 has been published in Volume III of the Annual Statement of Trade for 1940 (pages 91 to 93); corresponding particulars for later years are not available for publication.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it appears rather strange that textile machinery is exported to the Middle East for the purpose of manufacturing the products which Lancashire used to sell while our textile machinery is rendered idle?

Mr. Dalton: As I have assured my hon. Friend before, I am in close touch with my friends in Lancashire with regard to this matter. There are certain actions we have to take in relation to the war effort; it may be necessary to assist local production in certain areas overseas in order to assist shipping. That is the sort of consideration we have to bear in mind.

Utility Overcoats

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the excessive prices now being charged for ready-to-wear and made-to-measure overcoats for civilian wear, he will arrange to have on sale in the autumn of 1943 a utility overcoat made of cloth of a minimum weight of 24 ounces at a price, less Purchase Tax, under £5 and for the ration for such overcoats to come out of the ration of the expensive overcoats on sale at present?

Mr. Dalton: I have already provided for the manufacture of utility ready-made and made-to-measure overcoats from cloths weighing up to 22 ozs. per linear yard for sale to the public at prices from £2 8s. 1d. to £5 3s. 1d., and the bulk of production is within this range. I am advised that it would not be possible to provide in substantial quantity a satisfactory overcoat of 24 oz. cloth to sell retail at the price suggested by my hon. Friend. No Purchase Tax is charged on utility overcoats.

Mr. Walkden: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, can he explain why it is that good utility suits, which are becoming very popular and are undoubtedly sold at reasonable prices, and also ladies' costumes, are available in shops, but that as regards overcoats the tailors only speak in terms of ten guineas or more. Why is it? Cannot he afford a greater supply?

Mr. Dalton: I accept with great gratitude my hon. Friend's tribute to the increasing popularity of many forms of utility clothing. With regard to overcoats, the figures I have quoted will show him that the figure he mentioned is very much above that of the bulk of utility overcoats now being made. I will be glad to have a further talk with him.

Mr. Thorne: What must a person do to obtain a utility bed for a sick child?

Mr. Dalton: That is a different question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down.

Children (Clothing Coupons)

Mr. Mathers: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the large user of clothing coupons to provide for babies and children of tender years, he will institute a separate and more generous coupon issue for their benefit and restricted accordingly?

Mr. Dalton: Children already have a separate ration book; and I do not think that the present ration is ungenerous, having regard to the ever-increasing shortage of supplies.

Captain Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great hardship suffered by fathers, who find that their coupons are all taken away?

Mr. Mathers: Does not this question show the need for further ingenuity to meet what is undoubtedly a very difficult position? Will my right hon. Friend apply his mind to it?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I am endeavouring to apply my mind to a number of these problems, with the assistance of the House. I will not give my hon. Friend details now, because I am sure he knows the provision which has been made for children and expectant mothers—entitlement to 60 coupons and to supplementary coupons and the down-pointing of many children's garments, deliberately, in order to make the ration go farther. I think my hon. Friend realises that that is not ungenerous.

Sir H. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that no married man has ever seen a clothing coupon?

Household Articles

Mr. Mathers: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the issue of coupons for clothing and for articles of household use separately, as a means of assisting in a better balance of consumption?

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered a communication from a women's organisation in Deptford urging the issue of special additional coupons to housewives, available only for the purchase of household linen, etc., and whether he can make a statement?

Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friends to the replies given to similar Questions on this subject on 26th January and 2nd February, of which I am sending them copies.

Mr. Green: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that an enormous number of mothers feel a sense of grievance in that coupons which are specifically for their personal clothing requirements have to be used for household requirements?

Mr. Dalton: If my hon. Friend will be so kind as to read the answers I have referred to, he will see that there are very great difficulties in doing what he proposes. I am willing to consider at any time anything that I can do to remove any legitimate grievance, subject to the overbearing problem of the shortage of supplies, which determines all these matters.

Commercial Fish-Hooks (Export)

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the embargo recently imposed upon the export of commercial fish-hooks and similar goods will destroy trade in this country and result in the loss of markets which have been filled for many years by British goods; and whether, as fish-hooks were only made in the United States of America before the war on a small scale and are usually sent in boxes of 100,000 at a time, weighing approximately four cwts., he will reconsider his decision?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. The decision to prohibit the export of commercial fishhooks to certain markets was in accordance with the policy adopted by His Majesty's Government, explained in Command Paper No. 6311 of 10th September, 1941, regarding the use of materials received under Lend-Lease.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: What possible advantage to the total Allied man-power is to be gained by training labour in America to make these goods and at the same time putting trained labour in this country either to other work or out of work?

Mr. Dalton: The simple point is that we have given an undertaking to the United States Government that we shall not use to manufacture in this country and export, material which has been obtained from them. Fish hooks are made from steel which is imported from the United States under Lease-Lend.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Does my right hon. Friend realise that I have sent to his Department a paper showing that the United States urgently requires these goods?

Mr. Dalton: That is not in accord with my information. We are bound by this Agreement, and we are going to carry it out.

Mr. Molson: Has there been any reconsideration of the terms of Lend-Lease since the United States came into the war?

Mr. Dalton: It is always the subject of discussion; details of this sort are often discussed with the United States. But we are still bound by the Agreement.

Sir H. Williams: As we produce far more steel than we import, is it not the case that we cannot make these things because we have sold ourselves into bondage?

Mr. Dalton: I think the hon. Gentleman's language is extremely improper, when speaking of an arrangement made with a great and friendly nation, with the object of destroying the greatest tyranny the world has ever seen. It is a small price to pay that a few fish-hooks should be exported from the United States and not from this country.

Men's Clothing

Mr. Watkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any further statement to make on the present restrictions on men's clothing?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I have given careful consideration to certain suggestions which have recently been made to me for relaxing the present restrictions on men's clothing. As my hon. Friend is aware, these restrictions were imposed in order to save material and labour, and have resulted in substantial economies. These are more than ever necessary today, in view of the growing shortage of shipping space available for import of materials for civilian use and the need for further release of workers from the cloth and clothing industries. These restrictions have been in force for nearly a year, and I have reached the conclusion that it would not be in the national interest to relax them now.

Mr. Watkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, because material and labour will be saved, his reply will give great satisfaction?

Mr. Dalton: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Leach: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that this abolition of the turn-ups is not only saving cloth, but is a sanitary improvement?

Mr. Dalton: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

Underwear (Quality)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider improving the quality of the artificial silk stockings and other underwear at present on sale, which are of such flimsy quality as not to be worth the money or coupons required?

Mr. Dalton: Specifications for utility stockings have recently been more closely drawn, and new and improved types are now in production. Fully-fashioned rayon stockings were only manufactured in this country on a small scale before the war, the greater part of the supply being imported. As regards other underwear, I have received comparatively few criticisms, but I shall be glad to look into any particular case which my hon. and gallant Friend may care to send me.

Sir I. Fraser: When you are manufacturing a stocking you must use the minimum amount of labour and factory space. Would my right hon. Friend not consider whether the addition of stouter materials might not be more economical on wearing quality? Is he aware that the modern stocking will go into a spontaneous ladder if you merely wink at it?

Mr. Dalton: My lady friends keep me well informed on that matter. There are many legitimate complaints to be made against rayon stockings, but the reason, as I have indicated, is largely that before the war we did not produce many of these things; they were imported from abroad. My Department has been doing its utmost, with, I think, some success, to improve the qualities, and to get the kind of improvements which my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

Small Retailers' Supplies

Sir I. Fraser: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the importance of maintaining as many small shopkeepers, food and non-food, as possible and of their special difficulties, whether he will release higher quotas of goods to them than hitherto?

Mr. Dalton: As the House is aware, I have already made arrangements to assure small retailers in clothing, pottery and hollow-ware their fair share of the limited supplies now available. I am informed by the Chairmen of the Committees who supervise the schemes that these are work-

ing satisfactorily. Food retail trade is the concern not of the Board of Trade, but of the Ministry of Food.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point that the smaller the shop the greater its difficulties, and see whether he can get them even more supplies?

Mr. Dalton: I am glad to say that since the fair-shares scheme for the small shopkeeper was introduced, I have had no complaint at all from this quarter. The evidence is that it is working very satisfactorily.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC WARFARE

Enemy-Occupied Europe (Vitamins)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he will give an assurance that the impossibility of supplying all parts of occupied Europe with adequate food will not deter him from permitting navicerts for a small supply of vitamins to a particular country, if that can be done without materially interfering with the blockade and our shipping arrangements, and if the representatives of that country are of the opinion that the amount in question will be of material assistance to their children?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): While I sympathise with the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind, I am afraid I cannot give the assurance for which he asks. The hypothetical circumstances envisaged by the Question would have to be considered by His Majesty's Government on their merits when they arose.

Mr. Spearman: Is my hon. Friend aware that responsible people consider that the shipment of only 2,000 tons of vitamins and powdered milk would save children in Belgium? If it is so, would it not be worth while allowing it for only one month?

Mr. Foot: I doubt whether that arises out of the Question; but if that scheme is carefully examined, it will be seen that the whole benefit that might be conferred on Belgian children could be wiped out by some small reduction in the present ration.

Swedish Exports to Germany

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare to what extent war material, other than raw materials, is being supplied to Germany from Sweden?

Mr. Foot: Under Swedish law the export of war material is forbidden except under licence. The definition of war material for this purpose is contained in a Royal Decree dated 20th June, 1935, and includes warships, mines, torpedoes, aircraft, bombs, tanks, armour plate, guns, machine guns and explosives. As regards the manufacture in Swedish yards on German account of vessels capable of being used as minesweepers, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on 25th February by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). Otherwise we have been assured by the Swedish Government that, since the beginning of the war, no licences have been granted for the export to Germany of any of the articles mentioned in the Royal Decree. But, in addition to raw materials, Swedish exports to Germany do include certain classes of goods which, while they do not fall within the strict category of war materials, may be used cither for civil or military purposes.

Sir A. Southby: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that during the last war there was every reason to believe that war materials, such as torpedoes, were manufactured in Sweden and shipped direct to Germany in spite of assurances then given; will he also bear in mind that any ship is capable of mine sweeping, and will he further bear in mind when the war comes to an end the attitude adopted by Sweden and also remember the attitude of Norway?

Mr. Foot: Those considerations are, of course, constantly in mind in my Department, but I ought to say that we have no evidence to show that the assurances to which I have referred have not been kept.

Chilian Nitrates (Shipments to Spain)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare the quantities of copper

and nitrate, respectively, to be shipped from Chile to Spain during this year?

Mr. Foot: The United Nations have arranged to purchase the whole of Chile's exportable surplus of copper in 1943. There will be no exports of this commodity from Chile to Spain. As regards nitrates, it is impossible to foretell the precise quantities which will be shipped, but Spanish imports of nitrates from all sources will in any case be substantially lower than those in a normal peace-time year.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Beveridge Report (Army Bureau of Current Affairs)

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now decided on the subject matter from the Beveridge Report to be included in the Army Bureau of Current Affairs syllabus; and whether he will make a statement thereon?

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): A pamphlet on this subject is now in an advanced stage of preparation.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman show the same speed in this that he did on the question of the writing of articles to newspapers, and when it is completed, will he consider putting a copy in the Library so that Members can see it?

Sir J. Grigg: I have already told the House several times that these documents are placed in the Library and have been from the beginning. As regards the first part of the question, there are other things as well that we have to do, one of them being not to take our eyes off the ball.

Mr. Granville: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that we could have something before Easter?

Unpaid Lance-Corporals

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has given further consideration to the position of acting unpaid lance-corporals; and whether he has any statement to make?

Sir J. Grigg: War establishments are calculated to provide a reasonable and sufficient number of non-commissioned officers for the needs of units. Local commanders have discretion to sanction the appointment of a limited number of unpaid lance-corporals in excess of the requirements as fixed by establishments. They provide a good opportunity to enable promising soldiers to develop and prove their capacity for leadership and I do not consider that these discretionary powers should be withdrawn.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction among men who are called upon to do duty for which they are not adequately paid?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir, I am not aware of any such thing.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at this matter; and is he aware that the unpaid lance-corporal usually gets it in the neck every time and receives no pay?

Sir J. Grigg: On the contrary, the unpaid lance-corporal gets the opportunity of qualifying for promotion.

Mr. Dugdale: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Gallacher: They are in the same category as the P.P.Ss.

War Service Grants (Publicity)

Mr. J. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it has been found possible for platoon commanders to explain to their men the system of war service grants now in operation?

Sir J. Grigg: As explained by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions on 26th November last, wide publicity on many occasions and in various forms has been given to the existence of these grants and to the circumstances which justify their issue. If a soldier is in any doubt about his rights, he will no doubt ask his regimental officer at "Request Hour." The possibility of including something on this sub-

ject in an A.B.C.A. publication is now being considered. I do not consider that any further steps are necessary.

Officers (Pay and Allowances)

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) the computed value of clothing, feeding and housing officers in the Army of field rank and below; the value of the remission of Income Tax on a proportion of the pay; and what allowances are paid to married subaltern officers with children;
(2) the rates of pay and allowances, respectively, of second-lieutenants, lieutenants, captains, and majors in the infantry; what alterations have been made in the allowances recently; what reduction in pay has this amounted to; and what are the increases of pay that these officer ranks have received since the war began?

Sir J. Grigg: As regards the rates of pay and allowances of and the value of the remission of Income Tax to the officers referred to, I am circulating a comprehensive statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There have been no recent alterations in the rates of allowances. The following improvements in pay have been introduced since the beginning of the war:

(i) the normal period for promotion to war substantive lieutenant has been reduced from 18 months to 6 months;
(ii) the higher rate of pay for a lieutenant, that is 14s. 6d., is issuable after three years' commissioned service instead of after six years;
(iii) a new rate of 17s. 6d. for captains with 3 years' service in that (or higher temporary) rank has been introduced.

Sir R. Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of keeping up a proper state of pay for the men promoted from the ranks and also bear in mind the fact that the abolition of field allowance has meant the sacrifice of £50 a year, on the average?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not think my hon. Friend is right in saying that there has been abolition of the field allowance. Over 30,000 officers are still drawing field allowance.

FOLLOWING IS THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DAILY RATES OF ALLOWANCES NORMALLY ISSUABLE TO INFANTRY OFFICERS OF THE RANKS OF MAJOR AND BELOW SERVING IN THE UNITED KINGDOM WHEN PROVISION IN KIND CANNOT BE MADE AVAILABLE.


Rank.
Pay.
Ration Allowance.
Servant Allowance.
Lodging Allowance.
Fuel and Light Allowance (average rates).
Furniture Allowance.
Family Lodging Allowance.


Single rates.
Married rates.
Single rates.
Married rats.
Officers over 30 years of age serving before 1.1.42, who have not elected the rates shown in Col. 12 or 13. (Category A.)
Officers under 30 years of age serving before 1.1.42, who have not elected the rates shown in Col. 12 or 13. (Category B.)
All officers commissioned on or after 1.1.42, and those serving before that date who elected to receive these rates. (Category C.)


Captain and below.
Major and above.


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.




s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.

s.
d.

s.
d.
s.
d.


2nd/Lieutenant
11s. 0d.
2
9
2
0
2
6
3
6

11
2
0
2
0
7
6
Wife only
3
0
Wife only
4
0
4
0


Lieutenant
13s. 0d. (After 3 years commissioned service, 14s. 6d.)
2
9
2
0
2
6
3
6

11
2
0
2
0
Wife and 1 child
4
6


Wife and 1 child
7
0
6
0


Captain
16s. 6d. (After 3 years service in the paid rank of captain or higher temporary, 17s. 6d.)
2
9
2
0
2
6
4
6

11
3
6
2
0
7
6
Wife and 2 or more children
5
6
Wife and 2 children
8
6
7
6



(After 11 years commissioned service, 19s. 0d.)
8
6
(irrespective of rank)
Each additional child
1
0
1
0



(After 14 years commissioned service, 23s. 6d.)





Additional allowance if the officer is residing with his family—1s. 0d.


Major
28s. 6d. (After 22 years commissioned service, 33s. 6d.)
2
9
2
0
4
0
4
6
1
8
3
8
2
0
8
6

Note:—

ALLOWANCES.

An officer's entitlement is dependent on whether he is married or unmarried and if married whether he is separated from his family by the exigencies of the Service, the date on which he was commissioned and, in some cases, on the officer's own choice.

When rations cannot be provided in kind all officers are entitled to ration allowance as shown in Column 3. When a soldier servant is not available servant allowance as shown in Column 4 is issuable to all officers.

An unmarried officer for whom single officer's accommodation is not available is entitled to the single rates of lodging and fuel and light allowances as shown in Columns 5 and 7.

A married officer who is separated from his family by the exigencies of the Service receives family lodging allowance in respect of his family at the rates shown in one of the Columns 10 to 13 according to the category into which he falls as detailed in the headings to these columns and in addition is entitled to be regarded, for allowance purposes, as an unmarried officer at his duty station, i.e., if single officer's accommodation is not available he would receive the allowances shown in Columns 5 and 7.

The allowances issuable to a married officer who resides with his family are dependent on the category into which he falls as shown in the headings to family lodging allowance in Columns 10 to 13.

If in Category A he receives the allowances shown in Columns 6, 8 and 9, if in Category B he continues to receive the family lodging allowance shown in Column 11 and in addition if single officer's accommodation is not available the rates shown in Columns 5 and 7 subject to the total amount so issuable not exceeding the total of the rates for his rank shown in Columns 6, 8 and 9 and if in Category C the appropriate rate of family lodging allowance shown in Column 12 or 13 plus an additional allowance of 1s. a day.

In addition to the allowances shown a further allowance (Field Allowance) is issuable to officers who are required to occupy single officer's accommodation which is totally unfurnished. The rates of the allowance are as follows:



A day.


s.
d.


Second-Lieutenant
2
0


Lieutenant


Captain
3
0


Major and above
3
6

INCOME TAX.

£30 a year of the pay of field officers and £25 a year of the pay of officers of lower rank is deemed to be expended on the maintenance of uniform and is, therefore, excluded from assessment for tax.

A small number of majors receive command pay. Only half of this is chargeable with Income Tax.

Subject to these provisos, officers' pay is taxed under the same rules as the incomes of civilians. Their allowances are, however, generally tax-free in war-time.

Parliamentary Election Meetings

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for War whether King's Regulations, paragraph 541, will be amended to enable a soldier on leave and in mufti during an election in his own constituency to put questions to a Parliamentary candidate at a political meeting?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. No amendment is necessary on this account. A soldier in the circumstances mentioned who put questions in good faith to a Parliamentary candidate in order to inform his own mind, would not be taking an active part in the affairs of any political organisation or party, and would not be infringing the Regulation as it stands.

Fire Fighting Service

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the German custom of setting fire to all inhabited places before evacuation he will give instructions that qualified firemen, with air-raid experience, properly recommended and called to the Colours, shall be permitted to join the Army Fire Service, even if of A1 category?

Sir J. Grigg: I explained the arrangements for providing men for the Army Fire Fighting Service in an answer I gave my hon. and gallant Friend on 20th October last. If necessary, men from intakes will also be used, particularly those with previous experience which renders them suitable for this service. But men in A1 medical category will normally be sent to arms where they are more urgently needed.

Civilian Foremen (Pay and Allowances)

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for War the rates of pay for civilian conductors and foremen employed by his Department; what allowances are they entitled to; and what increases in pay have they been given since the war began?

Sir J. Grigg: Foremen in Ordnance storehouses are normally paid on the basic scale of 74s. a week, rising by annual increments of 2s. 6d. to 84s. in London and 71s. rising by the same increments to 81s. elsewhere. In addition they receive the Civil Service war bonus and a war allowance of 10s. a week. Some foremen have been appointed at rates


above the minimum, with the addition of war bonus and war allowance, but without annual increments. No other allowances are admissible. Apart from the war bonus and the war allowance an addition to the basic scale was made in May, 1940, which amounted to 5s. 6d. a week at the maximum and 6s. 6d. at the minimum. I understand that there is no grade of civilian conductor employed by the War Department.

Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister say whether any of these civilians are now paid danger money?

Sir J. Grigg: If my hon. Friend will refer to my answer, he will, see that I said that no other allowances are admissible.

Parliamentary Registration (Procedure)

Mr. Loverseed: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the increasing number of electors who are being conscripted into His Majesty's Forces and are failing to use their votes through ignorance of the procedure for registering as absent voters or, on posting overseas, for giving proxy, he will take immediate steps to ensure that commanding officers instruct all ranks on the procedure to be followed in such matters and to advise them, as their duty as citizens, to do so without delay?

Sir J. Grigg: The procedure to be followed has already been brought to the attention of all ranks by a notice posted on the notice boards of all units of the Army. The general responsibility of the soldier as a citizen, including the importance of exercising his vote, has been constantly stressed in talks and discussions conducted under the Army Education Scheme.

Mr. Loverseed: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me of the approximate date this notice was posted up? Further, is he aware that large numbers of sailors, soldiers and airmen still do not know the procedure to be followed?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not know the exact date it was posted up, but it was some time early this year.

Auxiliary Territorial Service

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War the position regarding the issue of physical train-

ing kit to the members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service?

Sir J. Grigg: Physical training kit has been issued to A.T.S. physical training instructors and to auxiliaries employed on operational duties with mixed heavy antiaircraft batteries or undergoing instruction in the duties of these units. Supplies of kit have also been issued for the use of all auxiliaries at basic training centres and some others.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Am I to understand that this is not issued to all members of the A.T.S. who have to do physical training?

Sir J. Grigg: That is so; it is not issued to everybody. For those I have mentioned either an issue or a supply is made available.

Sir G. Jeffreys: But is it not a fact that this physical training is compulsory and that after doing it in their ordinary clothes these women have to carry on with their ordinary work, in an uncomfortable state?

Palestine Regiment

Captain De Chair: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make any statement on the progress made with the formation of, and recruiting for, the Palestine Regiment?

Sir J. Grigg: As a result of the announcement I made on 6th August, orders were issued for the formation of the Palestine Regiment, which is now a unit of the British Army. I have at the moment nothing to add to the statement I made about it on 15th December in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah).

Steel Tubing (Scrap)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that the steel tubing formerly used for anti-tank defences or kept in dumps for this purpose and now found to be redundant will not be used for scrap, but when suitable, for industrial purposes?

Sir J. Grigg: Steel tubing which can be used will not be scrapped. Large quantities are needed by the Army and for other Government Services but large quantities should be available for industry.

Dental Treatment (Officers)

Mr. Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that under the present regulations officers are not entitled to dental service; and whether he is prepared to alter this rule, at least in operational areas, where civilian dentists are not readily available?

Sir J. Grigg: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Officers may obtain free of charge all necessary dental treatment from Army dental sources wherever they are available. Dentures can also be obtained from Army dental sources. These are supplied free where the need is due to a wound received in action, or to an injury incurred in the performance of military duty, or is incidental to medical treatment for an attributable disability. In other cases dentures are supplied on repayment.

Mr. Hogg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was myself refused dental treatment on the grounds stated in the Question, and will he take steps to see that dentists in the Middle East understand Army Instructions?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME GUARD

Dependants' Pensions

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War on what basis is compensation paid to the dependants of members of the Home Guard who are killed by accidents through explosions whilst on duty; whether pensions are payable at Army officers' or privates' rates, respectively; and whether the issue of this pension precludes, or is without prejudice to, any award of compensation for claims based on negligence as the cause of the accident?

Sir J. Grigg: Where the death of a member of the Home Guard is attributable to service, his dependants are eligible for consideration for pension under the normal conditions of the Services pension code for the present war, but at basic, or private's, rates only, without addition for rank. Except in the case of "war injuries" under Section 3 (1) of the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, there is no statutory bar against Common Law claims by dependants of members of the Home Guard. If in any case a successful action for damages at

Common Law were pursued, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions has power to take the amount of damages awarded into account in connection with the pension entitlement.

Women Auxiliaries

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make a statement with regard to women working with the Home Guard?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet to come to a decision in regard to the employment of women with the Home Guard and the terms and conditions of their enrolment and service?

Sir J. Grigg: It has been decided that a limited number of women, proportionate to the strength of the Home Guard, may be nominated for service as auxiliaries with the Home Guard to perform non-combatant duties such as clerical work, cooking and driving. Women between 18 and 65 will be eligible for nomination, but instructions have been issued that Home Guard battalion commanders should give preference to those over 45 or those who are not liable to direction to other work. Women nominated will wear a badge brooch. The shortage of women-power for part-time duties is such that it will not be possible to exempt women nominated for service with the Home Guard from being directed to any other form of full-time or part-time service. The nomination of individual women will be permitted, but Home Guard commanders are being instructed wherever possible to make use of existing women's organisations which indeed have in very many places been performing services to the Home Guard on an unofficial basis. I am very pleased to have this opportunity of acknowledging the valuable and devoted services which they have performed.

Dr. Summerskill: This is not the time to comment on the details of the answer, but may I, on behalf of these women who are helping the Home Guard, ask the Minister to accept their thanks for this statement, which is an official recognition of the work they are doing; and may I also remind him that to-day is Hitler's birthday and that this is an appropriate message to the Fuehrer?

Mr. Granville: Does the issue of a broach mean that they will not be issued with uniforms?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that no nurses or midwives will be allowed to be diverted?

Sir T. Moore: Can my right hon. Friend say when this arrangement will take place, and will he also note that this announcement will cause great satisfaction?

Sir J. Grigg: As regards the first part of the Supplementary Question, instructions have already been issued.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in all cases, promotion of prisoners of war and any change in their pay is notified to their next of kin; and, if not, whether arrangements will be made to make such notification in future?

Sir J. Grigg: The War Office in general gives no particulars of an officer's or other rank's pay and rank to anyone else without his written authority, I do not consider a change in this policy is desirable.

Sir A. Knox: When these men are prisoners of war, how can they ascertain whether they are getting more pay or have had promotion unless it is done through their relatives?

Sir J. Grigg: Whenever a prisoner of war requests us to tell the relatives we invariably do so.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will ascertain through the Protecting Power whether the Italian prisoner of war camp No. 5, near Genoa, is designed by the Italian authorities as a penal settlement for punishment for attempted escape; and whether prisoners are only kept there for a period or are permanently confined, as, owing to the appalling conditions and lack of exercsie, their health is deteriorating and almost all are suffering from piles?

Sir J. Grigg: This camp is used mainly for officer prisoners of war who have attempted to escape, but it is in no sense "a penal settlement for punishment." The prisoners of war do not, therefore, remain there for a period, as if they were

serving sentences, but are detained there just as they are in other prisoner of war camps. The opportunities for exercise at this camp are certainly very limited, but, as I have indicated in previous answers to my hon. and gallant Friend, representations have been made about this, and a playground should shortly be provided. In all other respects, including the health of the prisoners, the conditions at this camp are satisfactory. This is corroborated by a senior officer recently repatriated from this camp and by correspondence which I have been shown from other prisoners there, as well as by the reports of the representatives of the Protecting Power and of the International Red Cross. If my hon. and gallant Friend has evidence of bad conditions at this camp, I will gladly have the facts looked into if he will send me particulars.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War how many soldiers who are in captivity are not in receipt of proficiency pay?

Sir J. Grigg: The number could be ascertained only by an examination of the accounts of all rank and file prisoners of war; and I do not consider the expenditure of time and labour involved would be justified.

Mr. Bellenger: My purpose in putting this Question down was to ask the Minister whether he is aware that certain numbers of soldiers who fought against the enemy, and who are now in captivity, are precluded from earning this extra 6d. per day for the duration. Cannot he remove this anomaly?

Sir J. Grigg: Under the recent simplification of pay a certain number of prisoners of war will get the increase of pay. The number left over must be extremely small indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED SERVICE PERSONNEL (NEUROSIS)

Captain Duncan: asked the Prime Minister what steps are taken by the Service Departments when they discharge men on grounds of neurosis or mental instability to inform the civil authorities of the facts of each case; and what steps do the civil authorities take to protect such men from the consequences of actions for which they may not be responsible on account of the state of their minds?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): A scheme is at present being developed by which any man or woman discharged from any of the three Services on grounds of neurosis or temporary instability who appears likely to need social service care can receive it. This may imply medical treatment, the finding of suitable work or other help. The discharged man will at his own request be put in touch with a suitable civilian social agency. Work of this type has already been done informally, but it is hoped in future to make it much more widely available. The Ministry of Pensions is fully informed of the facts relating to all discharges and arranges continuance of hospital treatment where necessary. It is neither desirable nor legally correct to notify medical facts about individuals who are discharged to civil authorities in any automatic way.

Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the numbers of men involved already run into thousands and that the problem is daily growing more urgent? In view of those facts, will he press on this new scheme at the earliest possible moment? Further, can he tell me under whose auspices it will be run—the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Pensions or the Ministry of Labour?

The Prime Minister: The greater part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary Question has already been dealt with in my answer. I regret to say that I am not apprised of the answer to the last part, but I will ascertain that.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I ask the Prime Minister, in anything he does in connection with these very tragic cases, to bear in mind that the vast majority of cases of men discharged from the Forces owing to neurosis, where there is no pension, are known to the separate health insurance societies? Further, is he aware that there already exist mental welfare associations connected with local authorities?

The Prime Minister: I think my answer shows that we are treating this in a sympathetic manner and that active developments will be pursued.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister the present functions of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

The Prime Minister: Besides attending to the affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster, which are the ordinary duties of the Chancellor, my right hon. Friend is Chairman of the Security Executive, as stated by the Deputy Prime Minister on 18th June last in reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall). The Chancellor of the Duchy is also a member of certain Cabinet Committees.

Mr. Driberg: Without any personal disrespect to the right hon. author who now holds the post, could the Prime Minister tell me what salary attaches to it?

The Prime Minister: Yes, certainly, but reference to any of the official publications would have supplied the answer. I thought it was well known that the Chancellor of the Duchy is not paid by the taxpayers. His salary of £2,000 a year comes out of the revenue of the Duchy, that is to say, out of the Privy Purse.

Mr. Driberg: Is the Prime Minister aware that I put the Question because the information could not readily be ascertained?

The Prime Minister: I thought it was well known by most persons who had any experience of Parliamentary matters.

Mr. Shinwell: Am I to understand from what the Prime Minister says that £2,000 a year is the total amount of salary?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; the total amount. No extra salary is paid to my right hon. Friend for his very arduous and laborious work at the head of the Security Executive. This has been a matter of concern.

Commander Locker-Lampson: He is well worth the £2,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE REGIMENT (WELFARE)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that responsibility for welfare for the Royal Air Force Regiment is disclaimed alike by the War Office and the Air Ministry; and whether he will allocate this subject to one or other of these Departments?

The Prime Minister: My hon. and gallant Friend must be misinformed. Welfare for the Royal Air Force Regiment is


the responsibility of the Air Ministry. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister without Portfolio who is responsible for co-ordinating the work of the various Departments in so far as they relate to post-war planning?

Sir W. Jowitt: I explained in detail in the Debate on the Address the machinery we have established to co-ordinate the work of the various Departments in relation to post-war planning. If my hon. Friend will be good enough to refer to Col. 1084 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 1st December last—I am aware he was abroad at the time—he will find the whole arrangements there fully described.

Mr. Lawson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the last answer he gave to me on the subject of the co-ordination of the work on post-war planning by the various Departments was so vague that it gave the impression there was no co-ordination?

Sir W. Jowitt: I hope my hon. Friend will refer to the passage I mentioned, because he will see there a considered statement; I am afraid it is rather long, but I think it is fairly clear.

Earl Winterton: In view of the confusion caused in our minds by the answers given on this subject, will my right hon. and learned Friend consult with the Prime Minister with a view to obtaining permission to publish a White Paper or some statement of exactly what has been done and what is contemplated in the near future?

Sir W. Jowitt: I really think the statement to which I have referred was pretty clear. If I have obscured the situation unreasonably, it is because I have been tempted to try to give extempore answers to Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Lend-Lease (Reciprocal Aid)

Captain Gammans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total value of war supplies received from the United States of America since the outbreak of

the war; the amount paid for by the liquidation of British assets in America and by British funds generally; and the value of reverse Lend-Lease supplied by Great Britain to the United States of America?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): No monetary record is kept by us of the monetary value of war supplies received from the United States of America as Lend-Lease aid, nor of reverse Lend-Lease supplied by us to the United States. As regards supplies for which we have made payment, as I stated in the Budget speech on 12th April, this country has actually spent some £1,500,000,000 in the United States since the outbreak of war on supplies, munitions, and the provision of capital equipment for the prosecution of the war.

Captain Gammans: Why is it that we can quote figures of the goods supplied to Russia, but apparently cannot quote the figures of goods supplied under reverse Lend-Lease to the United States?

Sir K. Wood: I stated in my Budget speech that the figure was only a rough approximation of the amount concerned.

Sir Granville Gibson: Who will be the owners of this capital equipment which is being provided?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question on the Order Paper.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the comparatively unknown but very interesting facts he has just given, and which he gave only a few days ago, will be broadcast in the United States of America?

Sir K. Wood: I believe there have been extensive reports there.

Old Age Pensioners

Mr. Hannah: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider making any concession to the old age pensioners in the matter of the proposed higher duties on tobacco?

Sir K. Wood: I dealt with this question in a general way in the Debate on the Budget Resolutions. Further, as I have pointed out on a previous occasion, any scheme specifically directed to the supply of tobacco to old age pensioners at cheaper prices would present very serious difficult-


ties. I have endeavoured to help old age pensioners and other classes living on small incomes in other ways.

Mr. Hannah: Is it realised how very keen old age pensioners are on this matter, and is it intended to ask the old age pensioners for any contribution towards this Budget?

Sir K. Wood: I have already explained that.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have yet decided to increase allowances to old age pensioners; and, if so, when will the report be presented to the House?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statements made on behalf of the Government in the course of the recent Debate on the Beveridge Report.

Mr. Leslie: May I ask whether this will be brought forward early after Easter, in view of the long period since the promise was given and the fact that the Budget has added to the burdens of old age pensioners?

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Gentleman is now referring to another matter, the Bill that is being prepared and which I hope will be ready very shortly.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there is to be no further relief for old age pensioners in existing circumstances until the whole of the Beveridge Report has been considered and implemented?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, the Bill to which I have referred is to carry out the undertaking which the Government gave and which, I think, was mentioned in the King's Speech.

Belgian Gold Loan

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the 3,000,000 ounces of gold to pay for war material loaned by the Belgian Government has been repaid, and in what form; and, if in gold, is this now in the United States of America or earmarked for the United States of America Account in the Bank of England?

Sir K. Wood: This loan was repaid in January last in the form of gold placed at the free disposal of the Belgian Government. In informing the Belgian Minister

of Finance of our intention to repay, I expressed the thanks of His Majesty's Government for the Belgian Government's generous action in making the gold available to us. I cannot, of course, say anything in reply to the last part of the Question, since the present whereabouts of this gold is not a matter in which His Majesty's Government are concerned.

Sir A. Southby: Have any of the other Free Governments in this country followed the example of Belgium in putting their gold at our disposal?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that Question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARCELS FOR PRISONERS OF WAR (PILFERAGE)

Mr. Mathers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange to waive the use of the special Customs label on parcels containing dutiable articles sent by relatives to British prisoners of war, in order that they may be rendered less liable to pilferage?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Postmaster-General has already informed my hon. Friend that he has no evidence of pilferages on any appreciable scale from these parcels before despatch from this country. The label in question, which contains no indication of the contents, is necessary for the purpose of Revenue control not only on parcels to prisoners of war, but on other parcels sent abroad containing dutiable goods and I cannot undertake to dispense with it.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I provided the Postmaster-General with the information and that the Minister of War Transport, has admitted the serious extent of this pilferage and that he has already agreed to the label being waived in the case of Red Cross parcels?

Sir K. Wood: I think that was dealt with in the Postmaster-General's statement on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Good Friday Work (Pay)

Mrs. Tate: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether civil servants who are compelled to work on Good Friday receive double pay?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): It is the settled policy of the Government that payment for work done on any day which would, but for the war, be a holiday should be governed by existing law or agreements affecting the staff concerned. Before the war, the great majority of civil servants eligible for overtime payments were entitled by agreement to additional payment at time and a half rate if required to work on Good Friday. Accordingly, additional payment at this rate will be made to such staff as is required to work on Good Friday this year; non-overtime classes will be required to attend without any compensation.

Sir A. Southby: Is overtime paid to any members of the Fighting Services for the work they do?

Mrs. Tate: Is my hon. Friend aware that a large number of civil servants think it is quite unnecessary that they should receive this extra pay?

Mr. Assheton: I can quite believe it.

Admiralty Official (Home Guard)

Mrs. Tate: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has examined the case of Robert Duncan who refused to do Home Guard duty and who claimed to be British by force; and whether this man has been dismissed the Civil Service?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have been asked to reply. I have examined the case to which my hon. Friend refers and am satisfied that the circumstances do not call for the dismissal of Mr. Duncan, who is serving in the Admiralty. He has expressed regret for his words which, spoken in heat, he had not intended to be taken literally. His offence in refusing to join the Home Guard has been dealt with by the civil authority, and I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that he has now joined the Home Guard.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIMBLEDON BOROUGH ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (PENSION)

Major Petherick: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a recent decision in the King's Bench Division which had the effect of legalising the payment

of a superannuation pension of £2,045 a year by the Wimbledon Corporation to their retiring chief electrical engineer; and, seeing that the pension after 40 years service of a retiring Permanent Secretary to the Treasury or to other Government Departments would be £1,750 a year, will he take action to put an end to such anomalies?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I have been asked to reply. I have seen references in the Press to this decision, but a full report of the proceedings is not at present available to my right hon. Friend. On the information before the Department I can add nothing to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) on 19th November last.

Major Petherick: Will the hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friend if he will examine the position of other members of the Government concerned, in view of the fact that it is an anomaly that a distinguished servant of a Corporation should, on retiring, receive more than the Permanent Secretary of a Government Department?

Miss Horsbrugh: Without going into details of the case and of the amount received, I should like to remind my hon. and gallant Friend that my right hon. Friend has no power whatever, as the Statute specifically confers an unfettered discretion upon the local authorities.

Mr. Gallacher: Was there a means test?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH BELL RINGING (REMOVAL OF BAN)

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the subject of the ringing of church bells?

The Prime Minister: The War Cabinet, after receiving the advice of the Chiefs of Staff, have reviewed this question in the light of changing circumstances. We have reached the conclusion that the existing orders on the subject can now be relaxed and that the church bells should be rung on Sundays and other special days in the ordinary manner to


summon worshippers to church. This new arrangement will be brought into effect in time for the Easter celebrations this year.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House when he will make a statement about Business on our resumption after Easter?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I hoped to do that to-day, but we are not quite ready. If it is convenient to the House, I will make it on the next Sitting Day.

Sir H. Williams: At the commencement of Business to-day the Title of a Private Bill was read out, but no particulars were circulated. I understand that there is a new practice and Members are not notified now what Private Business it is proposed to take.

Mr. Speaker: I think, as a matter of fact, Members can obtain these notices with their daily Papers.

Sir H. Williams: In the ordinary way when a Member picks up his Papers there is no slip on it, so no one was aware what Private Bill was being taken.

Mr. Speaker: I know that the arrangement was originally made with a view to saving paper. Therefore, it was cut down, and I think not circulated, but I will look into the matter.

Sir F. Fremantle: May I add, Mr. Speaker, that the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports, in considering possible economies of paper in the daily issue of Votes and Proceedings, decided that the Private Legislation sheet should be reduced in size and should be available to Members at the Vote Office, concluding that this would meet the general need.

BILL PRESENTED

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (INTERIM DEVELOPMENT) BILL,

"to bring under planning control land which is not subject to a scheme or resolution under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, to secure more effective control of development pending the coming into operation of planning

schemes, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid"; presented by Mr. W. S. Morrison, supported by Sir John Anderson, Sir William Jowitt, Mr. Ernest Brown, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Henry Strauss; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to Consolidate the War Damage Act, 1941, the War Damage (Amendment) Act, 1942, and the War Damage (Amendment) Act, 1943 (other than provisions thereof for amending the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939).—[War Damage Bill [Lords.]

Orders of the Day — CATERING WAGES BILL

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Ordered,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments in Schedule 1, page 13, line 23, Schedule 1, page 13, line 26, and Schedule 1, page 13, line 27, standing on the Notice Piper in the name of Mr. Bevin.—[Mr. Ernest Bevin.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Constitution, officers and proceedings of the Commission.)

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I beg to move, in page 13, line 23, at the end, to insert:
4. (1) The Minister may appoint such number of persons as he thinks fit as assessors to be available to the Commission in connection with any investigation or enquiry that the Commission may undertake, being persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, have expert knowledge of any of the matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
(2) An assessor shall not vote or otherwise be a party to any report or recommendation of the Commission.
This Amendment provides for the appointment of assessors and is moved in accordance with the promise I made during the previous Sittings.

Sir Douglas Hacking: If I move the Amendment to the Amendment which is standing in my name, I take it that it will not rule out of Order a discussion on the Minister's proposal?

The Deputy-Chairman: No; the right hon. Gentleman can move his Amendment.

Sir D. Hacking: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after "may," to insert:
after such consultation as he thinks necessary with organisations appearing to him to represent employers and workers or other interests concerned.


When the Minister of Labour appoints members to the Commission to represent employers and employed persons it is laid down in the First Schedule that such appointments should be made
after such consultation as the Minister may consider necessary with such organisations representing employers and workers respectively as he thinks fit.
All I ask in my Amendment is that when the Minister appoints assessors to help the Commission he should also do it after such consultations. It would appear to me that it is more necessary that the assessors should have a good deal of knowledge of the subject-matter under discussion and decision by the Commission than it is for members of the Commission to have such a knowledge.

Mr. Bevin: I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment to my Amendment. In the appointment of assessors I am anxious to avoid the question of sides arising by inference or implication. I want the Commission to have the assistance of expert technical assessors, and if I put the Amendment in the Bill, it will have a limiting implication in the administration. The common-sense thing to do is, of course, to ask associations administratively whether they have any experts they would like to suggest, but if I put this in the Bill, it will be thought as time goes on that if I get an assessor from one side, I must have an assessor from another. What it would really do by implication is to extend the Commission, and I do not want to do that. I want to vary the assessors according to the nature of the service under the consideration of the Commission.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to the Amendment will consider withdrawing it, because a great many of us feel that the concession made by the Minister for the appointment of assessors has made a valuable addition to the Bill. If we follow the precedent of assessors in the Admiralty Court, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that it will lead to endless confusion, and we shall never get finality as to who is to be an assessor if various interests are to be consulted. It is in the interests of the catering industry that the greatest latitude and freedom should be given to the Commission to appoint assessors who are technical experts.

Sir D. Hacking: I am always ready to respond to an appeal, but I am not particularly happy about the Minister's reply. He has complete freedom throughout the Bill, and he may not even appoint assessors. His Amendment simply gives him power to appoint them if he thinks fit. My suggestion is the reasonable one that assessors should only be appointed after consultation in the same way as members of the Commission are. I do not want to press the matter to a Division, and if it meets the convenience of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Major Gluckstein: Could the Minister explain whether, when a person has been appointed an assessor, he remains an assessor, or whether he is only appointed ad hoc to be an assessor when a particular matter is under consideration by the Commission? Is there to be a panel of assessors, or is an assessor merely to be appointed for a particular investigation?

Mr. Bevin: The latter was my intention.

Sir Stanley Reed: May I express the warm satisfaction of those who take an interest in this great industry at the Minister's decision? I think that it will give widespread satisfaction, but I sometimes wonder whether members realise how far it goes. Some of us put down an Amendment asking for the representation on the Commission of the tourist industry. We realise that that would have disturbed the balance of the Commission. Now, however, the Commission will have at its disposal at all times experts on the innumerable branches of this widespread industry to assist it. That goes so far that we can accept the Minister's proposal for we are convinced that the Commission will now be a beneficial agency for the improvement of the catering and tourist industries.

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: May we have an assurance on that point? There is serious apprehension in certain sections of the trade that immediately after the war there will be a sudden and perhaps overwhelming expansion of the tourist and holiday traffic. There is a doubt in many minds whether the wages


board is the proper body to deal with such a problem. Will the assessors be persons who are competent to give advice to the Commission on that subject?

Mr. Bevin: The idea has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed). I moved this Amendment in order to give the Commission an opportunity to get experts to help it in the various subjects it has to deal with. The undertaking I gave about the rehabilitation of the industry raises the same issue. I can assure the Committee that the Commission will have the opportunity of consulting experts, according to the branch of the industry that it is dealing with, in order to get prompt reports.

Sir E. Cadogan: In view of the Minister's explanation, may I say that I welcome this Amendment?

Captain Peter Macdonald: Having moved the Amendment in the previous Committee discussion, in response to which the Minister promised to try to find some means of meeting us by the appointment of assessors, I, also, would like to express my appreciation of the Amendment moved to-day by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that when assessors are appointed, in addition to the interests which have already been mentioned to-day, the special problem of the seaside resorts will have very serious consideration.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that to go into that matter would be going very wide on this Amendment.

Captain Macdonald: I have no intention of dealing with the whole question. I merely wish to point out that this is one vital matter which will have to be dealt with, and I hope the Minister will consider the appointment of a representative of some organisation representing the seaside resorts, to help as an assessor, in dealing with this very urgent problem.

Major Petherick: During previous discussions in Committee I suggested that, instead of leaving the Bill as it was then drafted, we should provide for a completely independent Commission with an advisory committee. The Minister then was good enough to promise to meet the points raised by various hon. Members, and I think that he has met this point very well.

I am inclined to think that his suggestion of an independent Commission with assessors is really better than the original suggestion of an independent Commission with an advisory committee. Under the Minister's proposal the two bodies will be sitting together in the same room. The only point which disturbs me a little is the possibility that independent members may wish to discuss certain matters in private, without the assessors being present, and I should rather like to know whether they will be able to do that. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could inform the Committee on that point.

Mr. Bevin: Certainly, the Commission is an independent Commission, and if they want to come to their judgment without the assessors, they can do so.

Proposed words there inserted.

Further Amendments made:

In page 13, line 26, after "of," insert "and assessors to."

In line 27, after "chairman," insert "of the Commission."—[Mr. Bevin.]

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on re-committal), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Interpretation.)

In this Act—

(1) the expression "wages board" means a wages board established or to be established under this Act;

(2) the expression "undertaking" means any business which consists wholly or mainly in the carrying on (whether for profit or not) of one or more of the following activities, that is to say, the supply of food or drink for immediate consumption, the provision of living accommodation for guests or lodgers or for persons employed in the undertaking and any other activity so far as it is incidental or ancillary to any activity as aforesaid of the undertaking and, unless the context otherwise requires, includes any business, whether carried on by way of trade or not and the activities of any body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporated.

(3) the expression "workers" means all persons—

(a) who are employed in any undertaking or any part of an undertaking; and
(b) who for the purpose of any undertaking or part of an undertaking perform any work in pursuance of an arrangement expressed or implied made by them by way of trade with the persons carrying on that undertaking.—[Major Petherick.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Major Petherick: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Hon. Members will recall that during the Committee stage considerable confusion existed in the minds of the Committee about the workers who were to be covered by the Bill, and we had some rather intense discussion on the point. When that discussion was ended, the confusion still remained. If hon. Members who are supposed to be experts in legislation are confused in their minds at the end of all this discussion, how much more difficult will it be for employers and employees in the various branches of the trade concerned to know whether they are or are not covered by the Bill. It is to meet that difficulty that I have drafted this new Clause, and I suggest—though perhaps it is not for me to make the suggestion—that it should go immediately after Clause 1, Sub-section (1), in the final draft of the Bill. My idea is to telescope together Subsection (2) of Clause 1 and the original Clause 17, which was previously the interpretation Clause. The drafting has not been easy, but I have done my best.
The Amendment in the name of the Minister which appears on the Order Paper to-day makes it clear that my right hon. Friend has tried to meet the points which were raised in Committee, but after reading my right hon. Friend's Amendment, I frankly confess to the, perhaps unworthy, suspicion that unwillingness to accept my proposal arises from a desire to avoid the gross solecism of accepting in any form an Amendment moved by a Private Member. I, frankly, believe that the words of the proposed new Clause are better than those proposed in my right hon. Friend's Amendment. My first reason for thinking so is that the new Clause would put all the interpretations into one Clause. My second is that the new Clause is in logical order. It first defines the undertaking, in order to show the class of business covered by the Bill, and then it goes on, in Sub-section (3), to say that the workers must be employed in that undertaking and must have a contract of service with it, if they are to be covered by the Bill. I submit that the Minister's Amendment is not in the correct order. It refers first to the workers in undertakings, then says what the undertaking is, then goes on to say what the undertaking includes and finally

goes back to the workers again. In addition, there is the drawback that the interpretations would remain in two different Clauses—in Clause 1 and in the new Clause 19, which is at the end of the Bill and is a very short interpretation Clause. That is rather pointless. It is surely far better to have the whole of the interpretations at the beginning of the Bill. I know the habit has grown up of always putting the interpretation Clause at the end of a Bill, but on certain occasions interpretations are inserted at the beginning. I rather prefer to have my index at the beginning of a Bill, because then one knows what everything means when reading the Bill. For these reasons I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be too insistent that his drafting is the better, and that even if he does not wish to commit, himself now, he will look into the matter further before the Bill reaches another place.

Sir S. Reed: I am confident that my right hon. Friend is too big a man to refuse to accept a new Clause because it has been put down by a Private Member. I know that he hopes to get very much out of this Bill, and that therefore he will be quite ready to accept anything which removes ambiguities and makes it easier to operate. I hope that he will accept this new Clause as an honest, serious and perfectly friendly attempt to clear up ambiguities which do exist in the minds of hon. Members, and which must exist outside this House, and that he will accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend that the matter should have his earnest consideration either now or on another appropriate occasion.

Mr. Speaker: I think it might be for the convenience of the House that I should suggest that the two Amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this new Clause should be considered at the same time as the Amendment in the name of the Minister, so that we could have a general discussion on them.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I should like to assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) that I have given the most careful consideration to the drafting of this Clause, in accordance with the


promise I made in Committee. It is in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Penryn and Falmouth that the definitions affecting the scope of the Bill have been grouped together, under this new plan, at the beginning of the Bill. The reason for this was that I wanted, and I also understood him to desire, to collect these definitions of scope together, so that anyone who wanted to see the scope of the Bill would have them in front of him and see them at the outset. With respect to my hon. and gallant Friend, I do not think it would be an improvement to put with them the definition of a wages board. That is a different matter, and I think it is clearer to keep that in Clause 19, a short Clause which is easy to read and to understand. With regard to my hon. and gallant Friend's draft, I should like to pay my tribute to the trouble which he and those who are associated with him have taken in this matter, but there is a fundamental difficulty in his draft which is not a matter of wording but of the contraction of the scope.
I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend intended it—I do not think he did—but I would like to show what would be the effect of the draft which he has put forward. He defines "undertaking" as meaning, in effect, any business which consists wholly or mainly in the carrying on of catering or hotel activities—I am paraphrasing his words. That would have the effect of putting outside the scope of the Bill virtually all works canteens, because in an engineering factory, for example, that cannot possibly be said to consist wholly or mainly in the carrying on of catering or hotel activities. Clause 1 (2) in the Bill avoids this pitfall, as it makes the Measure apply to all persons employed in any part of an undertaking which consists wholly or mainly in the carrying-on of the listed activities. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend did not intend to omit canteens from the Bill and that now that this point has been drawn to his attention he will see that the form which is used in the Bill is necessary to carry out its purpose.
With regard to the general lay-out of the matter, I respectfully submit that my right hon. Friend's arrangement is the logical one. First of all, one wants to make it clear what are the catering activities that are in mind. We have them in Subsection (2), which deals with the list—the

supply of food or drink for immediate consumption and the provision of living accommodation for guests or lodgers or persons employed in the undertaking. That is made clear. It is essential, and one must say that the Bill applies to the workers who are engaged in undertakings in these activities. You list your activities. Then you want to say something more about undertakings, to make clear what they are, so we add Sub-section (3), which defines undertakings. This is the point of the instruction which I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to note. I am sure he will recognise that we cannot be content, in the wording of his own new Clause, with the mere statement "employment." We have to extend the definition of workers, and so, coming logically in order, we have Subsection (4), which adds the extended definition of "worker." In this connection I see that my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe) is here. I am indebted to him, not only in the House but in the correspondence he has been good enough to send me, for suggestions with regard to it. I went into the matter carefully, and we consulted with the Parliamentary draftsman, both in writing and orally, and we could not find more apt words than those which have been used. I am greatly reinforced by observing that the Mover of this new Clause has adopted the same words. I hope I have not taken up too much time, but I wanted to assure hon. Members that these points which were gone into so thoroughly in Committee have been most carefully considered by my right hon. Friend and myself, and we have done our best, while keeping the scope of the Bill as we think it ought to be, to bring it into the clearest possible form and into the form desired by the House.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 1.—(The Catering Wages Commission and the workers to whom this Act applies.)

Sir D. Hacking: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, at the end, to insert:
Provided that such workers shall not include any persons employed as a manager of any undertaking and who is in receipt of remuneration exceeding four hundred and twenty pounds per annum.
The House will recollect that during the Committee stage there was a rather long discussion on whether or not certain


people should be included in the Bill. I moved an Amendment which showed, in effect, that many people had been left out of the purview of the Bill who were engaged in comparatively lowly paid jobs in this industry. I did not intend that result, and consequently I withdrew my Amendment. The Amendment I now move would exclude only those managers who are in receipt of remuneration exceeding £420, but that limit is not a rigid one. It is taken from the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and if the Minister proposed even to increase that sum slightly, I should not object. It is felt that these comparatively well paid managers who are in control of undertakings should not have their responsibilities obstructed by regulation of their conditions of employment. It was shown on the Committee stage that the meaning of "conditions of employment" would include hours of rest; obviously, if you include hours of rest, you control the hours of employment. It is felt by some of us that it would be wrong to control the hours of employment of people in responsible positions in hotels, etc. It seems unnecessary to bring in these managers, and it might be harmful to the proper conduct of a hotel or restaurant if they were brought in. If the Minister does not accept the Amendment now, I hope he will give the matter consideration and, if necessary, meet my point when the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Bevin: I regret that I cannot accept this limiting obligation upon the wages boards and the Commission. I made it clear on the Committee stage that the Commission will have, with all the facts before them, and now with assessors, the power and opportunity to determine the scope. If the House lays down a figure of £420 above which no one should have a regulated existence or any protection, I think it would be a very retrograde step indeed. The figure £420 happens to be that fixed in the Insurance Acts and not in the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and since that was fixed, in the discussion on the question of insurance some little while ago we announced to the House that we accepted universality and that that was the definite policy of the Government in that respect. Therefore, when that Measure comes to be dealt with, the £420 limit will go entirely. To insert any limiting figure in the Bill is therefore entirely wrong. With an independent

Commission and Commissioners to determine scope, and with expert advice, the matter might well be left for them to deal with.

Mr. Ridley: I am glad that the Minister has resisted the Amendment for the reasons which he has just expressed. The right hon. Gentleman who moved it surrendered his own case when he talked of people in receipt of £420 per annum as "comparatively well-paid managers." How can he say, in the absence of knowledge, whether they are comparatively well paid or not? They may be managers of very small restaurants, in which case a salary of £420 a year may be exorbitant, or they may be managers of very large restaurants, as to which that standard would be low. It will remain for the appointed body to decide that kind of question. I am entirely at a loss to understand why it is wrong to control the hours of duty of people who occupy higher positions. I have been associated for a long time with a trade union which has tried, with some success, to break down the idea that protecting legislation and arrangements are suitable only for people with low wages. If it is found on inquiry that the hours of duty of managers are scandalously long, as might well be, I cannot think that the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking) would not desire to have them regulated so as to conform more to standards of decency. He also said that some form of control as to wages and conditions of employment might be harmful to the running of a restaurant, but that suggestion is in conflict with experience. The extent to which conditions have been regulated in this manner has been a contribution to the more efficient running of the catering industry, and there is no better way of bringing about great efficiency.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 1, line 23, at the end, insert:
(3) In this Act the expression 'undertaking' includes any business, whether carried on by way of trade or not, and the activities of any body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporated.
(4) For the purposes of this Act, any worker who, for the purposes of any undertaking or part of an undertaking, performs any work in pursuance of an arrangement express or implied made by the worker by way of trade with the persons carrying on


that undertaking shall be deemed to be employed by them in that undertaking or part."—[Mr. Bevin.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Power to fix remuneration and holidays.)

Mr. Bevin: I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, at the end, to insert:
or shall affect any worker in relation to any employment if and so long as a trade board or agricultural wages board or agricultural wages committee or the Road Haulage Central Wages Board has jurisdiction in relation to his remunerataion for that employment.
I gave an undertaking on the Committee stage to try to find words to prevent overlapping between the different boards. The words in the Amendment are intended to fulfil that object.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bevin: I beg to move, in page 7, line 11, after "statutory" to insert "minimum."

Major Petherick: I have risen to thank the Minister for having put this Amendment down. I had a similar Amendment on the Paper for the Committee stage, and I will not now repeat the arguments for it. I am very pleased that he has seen fit to put down an Amendment in similar terms.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Effect and enforcement of wages regulation orders.)

Amendment made: In page 7, line 14, after "statutory," insert "minimum."—[Mr. Bevin.]

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 10.—(Computation of remuneration.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 23, after "statutory," insert "minimum."—[Mr. Bevin.]

Sir D. Hacking: I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, at the end, to insert:
on the provisions of the Truck Acts, 1831 to 1940, relating to the payment of wages in current coin of the realm and of the statutory or other provisions whatsoever that would restrict a wages board in authorising such benefits or advantages.
In the Amendment as printed on the Paper are no less than three mistakes, for which I must accept some measure of responsibility. I move the Amendment in its correct form.
I am not a lawyer, and have little knowledge of the law. Consequently I am particularly doubtful as to how the Truck Acts will operate in respect of the decisions taken by the wages board from time to time. This whole subject could have been debated during the Committee stage had the Chairman selected the Amendments on the Order Paper. In point of fact, there was no discussion at all in respect of this matter. I would only ask whether the Law Officer would be good enough to clarify the position now.
I do not want to make a long speech about all the difficulties one foresees. I would only just mention one case on which I would like to receive a definite reply. I would ask him whether it is certain, under the provisions of the Bill as at present drafted, that if a meal is counted as a wage or part of a wage the employer will be completely clear of any conflicting obligations, or of penalties under the various Truck Acts which have been enumerated? Perhaps the Solicitor-General will answer that question, and possibly other questions which may be addressed to him. If he could give a general picture of the effect of the Truck Acts in connection with the decisions of the wages board, if he could tell us that there is not likely to be any conflict between the decisions taken by the wages board and Acts of Parliament, I think it would relieve the minds of many Members of this House.

The Solicitor-General: I am very happy to accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend, and to the best of my ability to put the relevant provisions of the Track Acts before the House and explain how they are affected by the Bill. My right hon. Friend appreciates that the present position of the Bill, if I may start from that, is that under Clause 10, Sub-section (2), where such things as meals or board are supplied by an employer to a workman in a manner which is forbidden by the Truck Acts, they cannot be treated as benefits or advantages for the purposes of that Clause. That is what we start from, and so the point which hon. Members might consider worthy of attention is whether the matters which are forbidden by the Truck Acts ought to be cut out or not.
The position with regard to the Truck Acts is this: First of all, it is only a


very small problem in regard to the catering industry. The Truck Acts do not apply to domestic servants, and the decisions as to what is a domestic servant have brought the position to this stage, that servants in boarding houses, hotels, and public houses would be clearly domestic servants and therefore clearly outside the Truck Acts. With regard to cafes and restaurants, the kitchen staffs and cleaning staffs and waiters and waitresses would also be within the definition of domestic servants, and would therefore be outside the Truck Acts. The Truck Acts also do no apply to manual labour of a certain kind; it is the kind that is like that of artificers and people of that kind. Again, it has been the subject of decisions with which I need not worry the House, but the effect of which is that a large amount of manual labour is outside the provisions of the Truck Acts to-day.
That is the negative aspect of the matter. If I might put the positive aspect to my right hon. Friend, the Truck Acts would apply to a man who is employed, for example, in unloading or packing provisions in a catering establishment. I think they ought to apply to such a case. I agree it is a limited case, but I personally would not like to be a party to abrogating the value of the Truck Acts in regard to any worker in industry to whom they apply to-day, and I think they ought to apply. What is the effect? The general provision, as my right hon. Friend is probably aware, is that a contract to remunerate a worker for his labour partly by payment in kind is illegal, and is null and void. That is the effect of a number of Sections of the old Act to which my right hon. Friend has referred in his Amendment. There are two provisions which form exceptions to that. In the first case Section 23 allows an employer to make deductions for medicine, for rent and for victuals prepared and consumed on the employer's premises—that is probably what the right hon. Member has in mind—provided the workman has signed a written agreement for such stoppage and deduction. We consider that that provision ought to apply and that if anyone acts in contravention of that provision, the effect of the Truck Acts should still be maintained. 
In addition, an older Act of 1896 contains elaborate provisions with regard to

deductions in respect of fines and damaged goods and materials supplied. My right hon. Friend has told us that he really wants his Amendment for the purpose of having the matter ventilated, but if he really wished to press this Amendment, the effect of it, putting it in other words, would be this, that notwithstanding an employer providing a worker with meals in a manner expressly forbidden by the Truck Acts, and which, in fact, constitutes an offence under those Acts, nevertheless for the effect of Clause 10 he should be allowed credit in respect of those meals. That is a position which my right hon. Friend and I cannot accept. The effect of the provisions which I have endeavoured to explain to the House is that if appropriate action is taken under Section 23 and a workman signs a written agreement allowing the deduction, that is, that everything is in order under the Act, then in those circumstances the wages board can take the matter into consideration. I think it is a vital distinction. It is one thing, and in my view a bad thing, to pay a worker 70s. and an allowance for his meals which are valued at so much. On the other hand, if according to what has been practised for over 100 years, a worker is paid 80s. and then signs a formal document, which has always been demanded by the Legislature, that he will accept a deduction of 10s. as being the value of benefits received, that is a practice under the Truck Acts and a practice which no years of industrial legislation has shown us is sound. That is what we want to maintain. In those circumstances—and I think this answers the right hon. Gentleman's question—there would be no harm in, and nothing to prevent the wages board from, taking it into account under Sub-section (2) of Clause 10. I apologise to the House for taking up so much time, but the right hon. Gentleman asked me to clear this up.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman very definite that waiters and waitresses in cafés—in big and small cafés—are defined as domestic servants?

The Solicitor-General: Yes. If my hon. Friend would care to see the decisions—I obviously cannot take the House through reported cases—I will show him, at greater length any time he cares, that from a careful examination of the position that is the view I have formed.

Mr. Davidson: I am really interested in that reply. I do not want to detain the House long, but in some of the very large cafes where there are large numbers of waiters and waitresses, running into hundreds—in London particularly—one finds rather a staff of supervisors. Those men are black-coated workers who supervise each floor and are termed floor supervisors. May I ask the Solicitor-General whether those floor supervisors come under the heading of waiters or are they exempt?

The Solicitor-General: They will be exempt, under the Truck Acts, as being non-manual workers.

Sir D. Hacking: May I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and to say how much I appreciate the explanation we have had from the Solicitor-General?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 13.—(Officers.)

Amendments made:

In page 10, line 37, leave out from the first "to," to the end of the line, and insert, "give any information."

In page 11, line 1, after "statutory," insert "minimum."—[Mr. Bevin.]

CLAUSE 19.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. Bevin: I beg to move, in page 12, line 12, to leave out from "Act" to "the," in line 15.

Major Petherick: I do not know whether I can say what I wish to say and still remain within the bounds of Order, because it relates to the old question I raised just now in the form of an Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Solocitor-General was good enough to hand me just now a legal opinion on the point which I raised, and I think he was quite right in the discussion on the earlier part of the interpretation Clause in which he said with regard to the Amendment which I moved, namely, that canteen workers would not be covered by the Bill if my Amendment was accepted. Now, on this question of the interpretation Clause, I am not at all sure that the Clause as drafted covers canteen workers. I wonder whether I can be allowed a little latitude to develop this, because obviously we do not want a Bill to go to another place not saying what it means. If I may refer to Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, I will try to explain what I

mean. If the Solicitor-General would bear with me for just a moment and look at that Sub-section, I am not alarmed about the workers in the hotel business or lodging house business or all those whose business is mainly or wholly carrying on activities in connection with the catering trade. In that case it would be an undertaking. The one we are interested in is the canteen workers who would be engaged in part of an undertaking. Would my hon. and learned Friend address himself to this? Sub-section (2), if you leave out the non-essential words, reads like this:
The workers to whom this Act applies are all persons employed in any…part of an undertaking which consists wholly or mainly in the carrying on…of the following activities.…
I am extremely doubtful whether those words do in fact cover canteen workers. It seems to me that if they are employed in a part of an undertaking, say a part of Vickers, they would not be covered. The words are:
which consists wholly or mainly in the carrying on…of the following activities.
Vickers do not do that. Therefore, in order to make it correct, would my hon. and learned Friend consider putting in these words:
The workers to whom this Act applies are all persons employed in any undertaking or in that part thereof which consists wholly or mainly.…
It is difficult to make my point clear, and obviously I do not expect my hon. and learned Friend to accept the Amendment now. But would he look at it before the Bill goes to another place?

Mr. Francis Watt: I would like to say a word or two in support of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General has been good enough to let us have for examination the legal opinion on which he relies. I venture to submit that that opinion is wrong. If Clause 19 is parted with as it stands at present, those canteens, which the Minister of Labour desires to regulate, will, in my submission, not be covered by the Bill. The matter seems to me very plain indeed. If one looks at Clause 1, Subsection (2), one finds that a certain class of workers is covered by the Bill. First, you have workers engaged in an undertaking which consists wholly or mainly of catering activities. Then there are workers


who are engaged in a part of that undertaking. The test is, whether that undertaking is wholly or mainly engaged in catering activities. At the very end of the Clause, you will find that if it is something ancillary to such an undertaking the workers are covered; but the whole test is, what kind of undertaking is it? If it is a catering undertaking, the worker is covered; and if it is not a catering undertaking, the worker is not covered. I strongly support my hon. and gallant Friend, and earnestly urge the Solicitor-General to look into this matter.

The Solicitor-General: I am always prepared to look carefully into anything which my hon. Friends suggest. But I must confess that the words used give me no difficulty. I may put the point of my hon. and gallant Friend shortly in these words. He suggests that the adjectival clause beginning with "which" must qualify the second "undertaking" in the line. I should have thought that, in view of the antithesis between "undertaking" and "any part of an undertaking," it must be held to qualify "part." But it is obviously not only my duty but my pleasure to consider any point of clarity which is raised by my hon. Friends, and the matter will be considered.

Amendment agreed to.

Further amendment made: In page 12, line 18, leave out Sub-section (2).—[Mr. Bevin.]

TITLE

Sir D. Hacking: I beg to move, in page 1, line 4, to leave out "efficiency," and to insert "general improvement."
I think that at last there is a little hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will accept an Amendment which has been moved by me.

Mr. Bevin: I am going to accept it.

Sir D. Hacking: There is a very obvious omission, for which I am sure someone else than my right hon. Friend will accept full responsibility. We have removed the word "efficiency" from the general text of the Bill, and have placed in its stead the words "general improvement." It is only right that those words should appear in the long Title of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Some of my hon. Friends have suggested that my advocacy of this Measure on Second Reading was a little stridently expressed. If so, I will apologise. I can only plead my strong conviction of the desirability of this Measure, both in order to secure the proper allocation of manpower in war-time, if the war should be prolonged, and to help meet the many and difficult problems with which we shall be faced at the end of the war and in the post-war years. I would freely agree that the searching examination to which the Bill has been put in Committee has improved the Measure, as, indeed, my right hon. Friend has demonstrated by the number of Amendments he has either moved or accepted. I am, therefore, even more proud now to be able to support this Bill.
There are just two points in its working out to which I would like to refer, and which I regard as important if it is to be successful. The first is the quality of those gentlemen or ladies who will be sitting on the independent Commission. It is, of course, of the very greatest importance that the Commission should be held in the highest respect and have the complete confidence of all those engaged in the many services with which this Measure is concerned, and, indeed, of the general public. My right hon. Friend and the Department are fully seized of the importance of this, and we shall use our best endeavours to get the very best people for this important work.
The other point to which I would very briefly refer is the importance of obtaining and maintaining the good will and the co-operation of all those concerned in the catering services in the working out of this Measure. I was very pleased to see in the company report columns of the "Times" the other day, a very important statement by the chairman of one of our great companies, engaged in these activities, amongst others, which included the words:
We are of the opinion that the proposed Catering Bill, with the recent proposed Amendment, and with the fullest co-operation between the Commission and the industry, will form a basis which will be advantageous both to management and staff.


I am confident that we will, in fact, receive this good will and active co-operation from all concerned, and that if we do, this Bill will prove wholly beneficial in its operation, both to all those who are engaged in the many important catering services and to all of us who hope to enjoy the facilities which they will be offering.

Mr. Montague: I cannot let this occasion pass without offering my congratulations and the congratulations of hon. Members behind me to the Minister of Labour and National Service upon his adding another bar to his medal. I have not had the experience of trade union work and of trade union problems that the Minister has had, but I was in my early youth engaged in a comparable industry, very nearly allied to the catering industry, at a time when it was completely unorganised and was so antipathetic, from the employers' point of view, to organisation and to trade unionism that I felt compelled to throw up one job, when it meant a big sacrifice to do so, because I had to refuse, as a matter of conscience, to sign a declaration that I would not join or support the activities of any trade union whatever. That kind of thing no longer exists in this industry, and to-day instead of hours being, as they were then in many city establishments, 14 or 15 per day, they are the normal hours of industries of that type. The workers are better organised and looked after, and there are agreements, loyally abided by, under which they have the opportunity of leisure, reasonable wages, and protection in general. That has been done not exactly upon the lines of this Bill, but upon comparable lines; and that proves the possibility of industries of that character—because, as I have said, it is an allied industry—being organised and carried on under arrangements that will give some meed of justice and opportunity to those employed in them. I have noticed in the long years since that, so far from the industry being ruined, the dividends of the companies have soared.
The discussion upon this Bill in its various stages has, I think, shown that there is no sound objection to the principles embodied in it. There was at first a show of opposition, which flattened out rather. I will not crow about that, but I do not think I shall be far wrong if I say that it has been proved by the examination of this Bill that the opposition to it, so far as it had any basis or weight at all, was

purely the opposition of vested interests. Hon. Members who have reserved their opposition to some extent and have often co-operated on many aspects of the Bill in Committee, because they did not wish to stand entirely for vested interests, have realised that there was a substantial case to be made out for the principles of the Bill.
There is one thing that is exceedingly important, and that too has a bearing upon what I had to say about the industry in which I was engaged. The reason that conditions were so bad in that industry, which was a distributive industry, 30 or 40 years ago was because of the few in the industry who were not amenable to reason and to the claims of justice. They set a model for the rest in the unfair competition that was possible because there was no regulation, and the great advantage to the workers in the catering industry of this Measure when it gets upon the Statute Book will be that it will do away, at any rate in very large measure, with the kind of unfair competition, on the part of a minority of the industry no doubt, which necessarily depresses the standards of the industry as a whole.
I do not want to occupy much time now, because the battle has been finished and won, but there is a point I would like to make. It is wrong to assume that the catering industry is represented in the main by the kind of establishments such as luxury hotels and the rest that one finds in London. The greater part of the catering industry is composed of small people where regulation is required because of the conditions, of a higgledy-piggledy sort, of service up and down the country. There are thousands upon thousands of these people.

Mr. Gallacher: Small places pay better than big places.

Mr. Montague: I do not know that they always do, but whether they do or not, without regulation, they are the people who are able to take advantage of the necessities and stresses of industrial life. Another point is that the Bill embodies a principle which does away with any suggestion of bureaucratic handling. The appointment of a Commission and the subsequent appointment of wages boards where it is decided that they are required should be done with a minimum of official


interference. The idea that the object of the Bill is to interfere with the management of the industry is totally wrong. If we mean by management the real organising of establishments in the catering industry, then there will be interference where interference is necessary on behalf of the people engaged in it, and ultimately, I believe, on behalf of the industry as a whole. May I repeat my congratulations to the Minister and to hon. Members and the House for passing so smoothly a Measure, which although controversial, as all measures of this character must be, nevertheless is of a type which it is desirable to discuss and deal with in this House during war-time because the results of its application after the war will be of such immense importance in the reconstruction of a better Britain.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: I have deliberately refrained from taking any part in the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill or in any of the discussions on the Committee stage because for some 25 years I have had a very intimate and active connection with the hotel and restaurant business, in both this country and other countries. The Bill is about to receive its Third Reading, and I am sure that in making these remarks at the present stage of the Bill I shall be acquitted by the House of any personal motive in any remarks I may make. But in addition to that active association in the business, I happen to be the Chairman of the Hotels and Restaurants Association, which was founded nearly 40 years ago, and also occupy the position of Chairman of the Advisory Committee appointed by the Minister of Labour to deal with catering employees.
I have been in the House during most of the time that the Debate and discussions have been taking place, and I think that every Member has been impressed by the sincerity of the Minister in his piloting of the Bill through the House. One of the greatest assets he has had has been the desire to formulate machinery to establish basic wages and decent conditions for all those who are employed in the catering trade. But he is not alone in that. Every Member of the House wishes that, and one of my little disappointments in the passage of this Bill has been that more mention has not been

made of those great organisations which for many years have been conducting their businesses on the very highest Tines. For years there have been holidays with pay, first-class staff accommodation, staff pension funds, Christmas bonuses, uniforms, recreational facilities and many other concessions and privileges in the desire on the part of the trade to build up a very happy working community. There has been very little mention of the firms that have done these things.
After all, the hotel business has grown during a long period of years from small establishments; small businesses have, through pressure of travel and other circumstances, grown into big West End establishments, as have other establishments in other large towns. I want to assure the House that the Hotels and Restaurants Association has been very earnest in its desire to improve conditions not only from the point of view of the dignity of the establishment but from the point of view of the worker too. I do not want Members to assume that this has been a one-sided operation. Members must realise that when visitors come to this country from overseas they expect something of the same kind of accommodation, service, and welcome which they get in their own countries. It is to our interest that we should try to develop this sort of thing.
The Minister must feel exceptionally glad that what appeared to be a very contentious Measure when it started out three or four weeks ago has now resolved itself into some kind of peaceful agreement. Several of us did not like the Bill. It is not because of the Bill itself. To my mind, the Bill is exceedingly narrow in its scope. It does not deal with the multitudinous questions which are constantly arising in the hotel and restaurant business, and although the Minister has piloted the Bill successfully through the House to the present stage, his work is not done yet, by any manner of means. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the dignity of the Commission and the constitution of that Commission, and I notice that he said "men or women," which is some indication that it may be a mixed Commission, but the Minister's responsibility in the constitution of that Commission is going to be a very strenuous one, and the work of the Commission after it is formed will be


very hard, and it will have an unenviable task. It will have most responsible and strenuous work to do when it begins its inquiries into existing methods of regulation; the Minister will be empowered to vary those regulations.
If it were peace-time, I should strongly advocate that the Minister sent the Commission on a world tour, so that it might examine conditions of labour in the catering industry in other countries. It is always helpful, when we want to welcome overseas visitors, to be able to understand something of the catering conditions existing in their own countries. That to-day would be impossible but there is a tremendous mass of opinion at the League of Nations. In 1930 the International Labour Conference at Geneva excluded all classes of workers in the Hotels and Restaurants Association from the scope of the Convention because they were classified as domestic servants. I do not know how soon the Commission will commence its work and what period of hotel life it will examine first, whether it will go back to pre-war days or to examine conditions prevailing at the present time, or whether it will try to formulate some basis for post-war hotel life. But at the present time I can assure the House that conditions in the hotel and restaurant business are very abnormal. There is a great shortage of staff, and the whole business is riddled with orders and regulations, and to analyse the business at the present time and to formulate regulations would be an exaggeration of conditions in normal times, so that I hope that the Minister will bear that very important point in mind. There is a danger, when a Bill of this nature is introduced with the object of eliminating black spots in the industry, that more black spots might be created and more anomalies might arise on the very application of the Measure.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), on one of the first Amendments moved on the Committee stage, mentioned the small man. This is a most important phase of our life. Nobody wants to put the small man out of business or to deny the right of a man and his wife to start a business of their own and to build it up into a big business. I do not think that the Minister wants to do that. Therefore, I would ask him to keep them in mind, and if sympathy can be shown to that class of establishment, I would ask

him to show it, and to direct that sympathetic consideration should so be given.
Then there is the question of tips, which occupied a good deal of time in the House. In hotel life there is the carriage attendant at the front door, there is the cloakroom attendant inside, and there are other members of the staff behind the scenes. Where will the Commission formulate the system of justice between those in the front and those in the back? That is an important point which the Commission will have to take into account in fixing basic wages. There is also the question of wages boards and the areas covered by these boards, which are bound to meet. There is always the old problem of the borderline case when basic wages in one area, or working conditions, are not the same in an adjoining area. A motorist, for instance, might well be in an area where the hours vary from those in an adjoining area. He might be told that it is too late to get a lunch at 2.30 but that if he goes to the next village a few miles away, he will be able to get one up to 3 o'clock. I am glad to see that the Commission have power to take a broad view of these various recommendations. After all, the traveller, who is the client, has to be considered.
The Minister will require many Solomons to sit in judgment on these various questions. When the war is over and this country is flooded with visitors, as it is bound to be, hotels and restaurants will play a very important part in providing the necessary accommodation. The Bill provides for contact being made with Government Departments. At least two Members raised the question of bringing hotels back into their original use, and I hope the first task of the Commission will be to get in touch with other Government Departments and see that the requisite accommodation is available for visitors when they arrive in this country. In any planning that is necessary for future staffs there must be planning for the places in which they are to work. My criticism of this Bill is that it is too narrow in its scope. I would like to see catering establishments erected in our beauty spots——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): The hon. Gentleman has already gone rather wide, and he cannot possibly bring into this Bill on the Third Reading what he would have liked to have seen


established. He can only deal with the strict facts of what is in the Bill itself.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: Then I would merely ask the Minister to direct the Commission's inquiries into certain aspects of this matter. In any case there never was a field of labour in which there was so much opportunity for young men and women. Mention has been made of the technical institutions to which students will go for training, and I hope these institutions will soon be established. With good will and co-operation I hope this Bill will prove useful; I hope that what it sets out to do will be accomplished, and I hope that in future years the Minister will be able to look back on it with some pride and that some of us will be able to say, "We were wrong, and you were right." I sit down in the hope that the Minister will consult the technical people who have been engaged in the catering industry for many years. I have worked with my staff for 25 years now, and I know something of their troubles and difficulties. I have tried to do everything possible to promote the interests of the hotel and restaurant business. I wish the Minister good luck, and I am glad to offer my complimentary remarks to him on having seen this Bill come in like a lion and go out like a lamb.

Mr. Mander: I am very glad, as a member of the Liberal Party, to see that this Measure has reached its final stages in this House so successfully, because the foundation of social service of this particular kind had its origin in the great work of the Liberal Government of 1906–1914, when the original wages boards legislation was brought in. I am very glad that that legislation has now been extended in this way. It is generally recognised that where it is impossible, owing to the nature of the work, for people to combine successfully in trade unions, State intervention is necessary to give those workers what they would not otherwise obtain, and the catering trade is a very good example of that. My only regret—and I know I cannot develop this subject—is that domestic servants are not within the scope of he Bill. I hope the Government will deal with them——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot have any more expressions of what might be

in the Bill. I think I had better warn hon. Members once and for all.

Mr. Mander: I would like to congratulate the Government on their attitude to this Measure all through. I congratulate them on having stood firm against what looked like a storm of very serious opposition at one time. They stood firm as a united Government, supported by Members of all parties, and having done that they showed they were capable of dissipating the opposition that had arisen, and they carried the Measure through. I hope that is an example of the way they will tackle other subjects which may lead to a certain amount of controversy in the future and that all of us will be able to carry through legislation that may not be universally accepted but which, nevertheless, commands general support. I quite appreciate that those hon. Members who have been opposing this Bill have been entirely sincere. They have had their anxieties because they belong to that group of people which is so temperamentally constituted that they always want to look, quite rightly, very cautiously into anything in which they are interested. Since the Government came forward with this Bill an educational process has been going on. Everybody has benefited. Those who took up opposition have come to realise that their fears were not in all respects well founded, and with great good sense and good temper they have not obstructed the Bill but have done their best to make it a success, having recognised the fact that it was bound to go through. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bracewell Smith) referred to one question that will have to be discussed by the Commission—the difficult question of tips.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We discussed that very fully in Committee, and there is a strong rule that we must not discuss on the Third Reading points that were brought up on the Committee stage. Any reference that is made must be of the very narrowest kind.

Mr. Mander: I only mentioned the word "tipping." It is a difficult question, a question of custom and tradition. It is also psychological. The only country I have ever found where a tipping system is not in general operation is Soviet Russia. The only places where I saw it there were in the great hotels in


Moscow, where some waiters, remaining from the Czarist régime and brought up in the old tradition, were quite willing to receive any offers. This measure is in itself progressive and is based on well-tried experience in a number of cases in the past and is of great importance to those engaged in the catering industry. It will do them an immense amount of good, though having relation to the country as a whole it is quite a small Measure. I hope and believe it will raise the whole status and condition of the industry and that it will make this country much more attractive. One of the criticisms made by visitors in the past is against our hotels, their cooking and general conditions. If this Measure is instrumental in removing this criticism, it will have done something to make this land worth visiting in comfort after the war.

Sir Douglas Hacking: My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bracewell Smith) said that he believed in the sincerity of the Minister of Labour. I want to say at once that I, also, believe in his sincerity; it may have been misplaced, but that he is sincere I have not the slightest doubt. In saying that, I hope nobody will imagine that I or my colleagues, who have been opposing this Bill, have been insincere. We all have our own rights and feelings; we have expressed them pretty clearly at certain times, and I am sure that at the end of this Debate none of us will be the worse for that. I mention the question of sincerity only because of a remark that was made by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), who said that the opposition was purely the opposition of vested interests. I wish the hon. Member were here now to justify that statement; I am sure that, on reflection, he will not repeat such a statement. For my part, I have no interest in the catering trade; I never have had, and am never likely to have. With me it was as a matter of principle that I opposed the Bill on Second Reading and have kept up my opposition to this moment.
I will follow the example of the Parliamentary Secretary by being brief. My criticism, as expressed in the Second Reading Debate, still remains very largely unsatisfied, but I am bound to admit—it would be wrong if I did not do so—that valuable concessions have been made by the Minister, the Parliamentary Secre-

tary and the Solicitor-General during the various stages of the Bill. Those concessions have improved the Bill materially, but I think I am still entitled to say, with gratitude for those concessions, that this Bill, in my submission, will create a very large amount of irritation, especially with the inspections that will take place and especially with the poorer people, the smaller people, in the industry, who, I believe, will resent the interference in their section of the industry. However, I hope that when the Wages Board system starts to operate, it will be proved that the trouble will be lighter than one anticipates at the present time.
In my submission, the catering trades are much too complicated and varied for the application of a Wages Board system. I think there will be annoyance and irritation especially about the inspectorate and I feel that under the pressure of the small people very probably it will be found that the Bill will fail. The catering trades are very important, as everybody must admit. They contribute greatly to the health and welfare of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour spoke of helping the tourist trade, an expression which he has used several times. He is very anxious to help the tourist trade. I would like to know exactly what he means by that title. Does he think this Bill will bring to this country a larger number of foreign tourists? If he really thinks that I believe he is mistaken. If I may make a personal reference, it is now 15 years since I founded what is known as the Travel Association, the object of which organisation is to attract visitors from overseas.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now referring to the Travel Association. I must rule that to go into the objects of, or to ask the Minister about, the Travel Association is out of Order.

Sir D. Hacking: I am not asking anything about it. I am referring to the Minister's repeated statements about the tourist industry, which does touch the Clauses of the Bill, for otherwise, surely, the Minister would not have made that statement about assistance to the tourist trade. I will bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that the tourist trade to which the Minister has referred, if he means the people who come from overseas, is a very important invisible export,


and we have to be careful that anything which this Bill does will not damage that important invisible export, an export which has been put at no less a value than £30,000,000 a year. It is perhaps a little ironical that the maximum grant that has been received from the Government for attracting visitors from overseas has been £17,000 a year, and that this Bill alone is estimated to cost £30,000 a year—£13,000 a year more than the highest Government contribution to this great national organisation.
My prophecy as regards this Bill is a gloomy one. My belief is that, in practice, it may be actually harmful to the industry. A long time ago I saw a play in London which, I think, was called "The Arcadians." In that play there was a very celebrated comedian known as Alfred Lester. He was a very sad comedian. He made people laugh because he was so sad. I remember that the chorus of one of the songs he sang was:
I often said to myself, I said,
Cheer up, Alfred, you'll soon be dead.
The idea was, a short life and a gay one. If those words afford any consolation to me, it is in this fact, that I believe the life of this Bill will be a short one. I am pretty confident, however, it will not be a gay one. I feel, as I have said before, that it will create irritation that will be annoying to the majority of the people working under its provisions.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: It is a long time since the House has had an example of the visible effect of a comedian on the outlook of a Member of Parliament. Like the majority of hon. Members, I believe this Bill will remedy a great sore in the social life of this country. I have often discussed with the Parliamentary Secretary the question of the catering industry in London, where inquiries have revealed conditions that have not only appalled us but have seemed insurmountable by any form of organisation. Therefore, I am glad that at least an important and first step has been made to remedy and cure the very obvious discontent, mismanagement and inefficiency in the catering industry of this country. When an industry offers to young men and young women during heavy periods of unemployment the miserable amount of 12s. or 12s. 9d. a week, when those same people have to pay 25s. or 35s. for their

uniforms to the firm concerned, and when also they have to pay small premiums to sports clubs which they never have time to attend because of the 70 hours a week they have to work, I think it must be agreed by all that it is time some step was taken to remedy those conditions. This Bill has been brought forward partly because, particularly in London, thousands and thousands of working class boys and girls from the minefields, and other industrial areas where there was no employment for them, have been used in order to add profits to the big noises of the catering industry. To a lesser extent there has been the same sort of thing in Scotland.
With one exception, which I know is very welcome to the catering industry of Scotland, the Bill applies to the whole of Scotland. I know that in Scotland the Commission will have in mind the very important tourist industry in that country. Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister whether he will consider fully the possibility of having on the Commission at least one representative from Scotland, be it Scotsman or Scotswoman. I believe that if on this Commission there are represented the interests of both sides from different parts of the country, it will be a more efficient Commission, from the point of view of inquiries and administration, than if it were tied to only one big area of the country. I would also add, as a further incentive to the Minister, that if a Scotsman or a Scotswoman were added to the Commission, I have no doubt the question of tipping would be adequately dealt with.
I wish to utter a brief word of warning. There have been grave misgivings, forebodings and prophecies concerning what will happen to the Bill. When the Bill first came before the House, we were faced with opposition. The newspapers had told us that there were more than 100 rebels against the Bill. Because of public opinion and because of the feeling in the catering industry itself—but particularly because of public opinion which, in regard to legislation such as this, is not prepared to stand any nonsense—that opposition dwindled away to practically nothing. The proceedings on this Bill have not yet finished. It will go to another place. I would like humbly to advise those in another place to be very careful indeed that no unnecessary obstruction is put in the way of the passing of this


piece of legislation which will be of benefit to hundreds of thousands of people in this community.

Captain Peter Macdonald: As one of those who took an active part in the opposition to this Bill originally, I want to take very strong exception to the remarks of the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) who said that the reason our opposition collapsed was the strong feeling in support of the Bill in the country and in the industry itself. I have taken a very active part in opposition to the Bill from the outset, but I have not had a single letter of any kind from any section of the catering industry in support of the Bill. I have indeed had very many communications in opposition to it.

Mr. Davidson: May I point out that in the catering industry, where there is a certain standard of intelligence, they realise that to send letters to Members of Parliament——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have allowed an illustration on both sides, but to carry on this question of letters on the Third Reading of the Bill is beyond the scope of the discussion.

Captain Macdonald: I expressed my opposition, and the grounds of my opposition, on the Second Reading, and I think I made it clear that I and those associated with me had no opposition to wages boards as such or to a basic wage for this industry, but I still maintain that wages boards at this time are not necessary for the winning of the war, and, as this was put forward as a Measure essential for the war and immediately after, I disagree with the Minister of that point. I have no opposition to a basic wage in this or any other industry. What I take exception to is that a good deal of Parliamentary time has been taken up with a Bill which has nothing to do with the winning of the war at a time when a pledge had been given that controversial legislation would not be introduced. What we took the strongest objection to was the composition and functions of the Commission, and that is a vital part of the Bill. That has been met by the Minister accepting the principle that the industry itself should have representation in some form on the Commission, and his solution of adding assessors and technical experts to the Commission has met with the approval of everyone

concerned. If the principle had been accepted before the Bill was introduced, there would have been very little opposition indeed. As far as the composition of the Commission is concerned, with the Amendments which have been made to-day I have no further objection, but I am still concerned about the functions. My strongest objection to the Bill is that the Commission has not sufficient power. It has practically no power at all to carry any recommendations that it may make into operation, apart from the setting up of wage boards. I wish the Minister could do something even now to strengthen the Commission's functions and powers. They should deal with the catering trade in seaside resorts, the tourist trade, staggered holidays, holidays with pay and so forth, and I hope they will.
The hotel and catering industry in a great part of Britain is completely disorganised by the war and in many cases practically destroyed. Before any encouragement can be given to Americans or any other people whom we wish to attract to come here, the burning and vital thing to do is to get these resorts rehabilitated. The Commission, as I see it, has no power to do that. All it can do is to make recommendations to the Board of Trade, which, looks after the tourist traffic, and the Board of Trade, if it wishes, can cock a snook at the Commission and pay no attention to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is vitally affected by the rehabilitation of the industry at seaside resorts. We all know that the Treasury has constantly got its finger to its nose, if it has not got it in people's pockets. There's the weakness of the Commission. But the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he had the backing of the whole War Cabinet in introducing the Bill. I hope he will still have the backing of the Cabinet as a whole in seeing that any recommendations made for the rehabilitation of the industry in devastated areas and seaside resorts will be carried out, because it will require a good deal of support from every section of the country. Priorities for material and labour and a great many things will be required, and there are going to be a great many claims from other sections of industry for these priorities, and it is the strongest influence in the War Cabinet that is going to be able to get the first priority. I do not intend to vote against the further stages of this Bill after the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of our Amend-


ments on the last occasion and the representation of the industry on the Commission. If the right hon. Gentleman had in the first instance shown a little more consideration, not to vested interests, as has been suggested, but to those who, quite conscientiously and honestly, were trying to improve the Bill and make it workable, there would not have been the strong opposition that there was from the start. I do not think he has anything much to complain about in the form of the opposition or the way it was conducted. I think he has been let off very lightly indeed. If he had sent the Bill upstairs to a Committee, as he should have done, he would have had a much more difficult time, and we might have had a much more improved Bill, as he has not accepted all our Amendments by any means. The Bill has now reached its final stages. I do not know what its fate will be in another place, but I do not suppose that any great opposition will be offered there. I hope now that he has got it he will carry out all the things he promised for the rehabilitation and improvement of conditions in the industry.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: Representing, as I do, a constituency in which the catering trade is one of the main occupations, I should like to let the House know how much I welcome the Bill and what support I have given it from the start. It appeared to me when it first came before the House that there were two considerations to be applied to it. One was whether it would help during the war, and the other was whether it would help in the post-war settlement, and I found on examination that I was bound to answer both questions favourably to the Bill. Clearly, if the Minister of Labour was going to direct people into employment in the industry, he must be in a position to be satisfied that he was directing them into an industry where the conditions would justify him in directing them into it. As far as the post-war aspect of the matter is concerned, my view was that there would come a time when men and women from the Services and from other industries would want to go back to this industry, and it would be essential to have it properly organised, so that they could be assured that the conditions were such that they could go back and work in comfort and security. We have frequently discussed post-war

problems and made our promises to those who are coming back from the war. I wonder what they must have thought when they found that there were members of my party who were endeavouring to prejudice their chance of returning to their occupation. Demobilisation must take a long time. There is no acute wage problem in the industry at present, and the wages, I think it is universally agreed, are good, and that is because the demand for labour exceeds the supply. When demobilisation comes, that state of affairs will not last very long. I had a very uncomfortable feeling about the soldier who was released early in demobilisation and was able to make a good wage bargain compared with his companions who were perhaps detained for another year, seeing the market deteriorate all the time, knowing that by the time their turn came they would not be able to make anything like such a good wage bargain.
I viewed this Bill from those angles, and I was satisfied that I ought to support it. I need hardly say that, representing a constituency in which there are a vast number of hotels, boarding houses and other catering establishments, I was inundated with resolutions and pamphlets informing me that I should oppose this Bill. I stood resolute against them. Their very ingenuousness rather gave them away. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bracewell Smith) has referred to the association on behalf of which he speaks. I received a document from that association. It drew a picture of old inns where people sat round crackling logs, drinking stoups of ale and looking forward to large chump chops. Sir, what chumps! Not a word was said in that pamphlet of the squalid conditions reigning below stairs or the disgraceful scenes behind the doors of the lower-class cafés. All that was omitted, because it did not put the picture as the Hotels and Restaurants Association wanted it to be put. I flattered myself that I was able to stand against such propaganda, and I am glad to say that there is a large number of my party who have done the same. I have reason on this occasion to emphasise that, because so much has been heard of the opponents of this Bill in my party and perhaps not enough of those who have supported it.
When this Bill first came before the House there was really only one question to ask oneself. That was whether this


Bill would improve conditions in the industry. I do not like to think that those who oppose it do not want to improve conditions in the industry. I am, therefore, driven to the conclusion that they did not examine what its results would be. They have now endeavoured to pretend that they have graciously acceded to the Minister, and they refer to the battle which has taken place as though they had added to the Bill. They have done nothing of the sort. They have endeavoured to obstruct the Bill from start to finish.

Major Petherick: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. and gallant Member to accuse other Members of obstruction?

Captain Peter Macdonald: May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that charges of obstruction are being made by a Member whom we have not seen during the whole of the Debates on this Bill?

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I was only endeavouring to point out that, rather than pretend now that they have helped towards the progress of this Bill, they would do far better to admit that they have been fairly and squarely beaten by people who have an eye on the present and the future. I hope that they have not irreparably damaged the party to which I have the honour to belong.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I ought to make it clear that on Third Reading hon. Members must confine themselves to what is in the Bill, and not go too far from it. This is not a Second Reading Debate.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I apologise if I have gone too far. I only wanted to make it clear that this is a Bill which many of us welcome because we regard it as a valuable contribution, not only to the conduct of the war at the moment, but to the future which we hope to see settled on progressive lines.

Major Gluckstein: It would have been better for the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) not to have spoken as he did. All I can say is that I am glad that the embattled landladies of Brighton have had no effect on his martial spirit. I do not know how his constituents are to make their pleadings and views heard by their Member if not by writing to him on such matters. I have no doubt that when

his political life here has been a little longer, he will realise that sometimes his constituents do mean what they say when they write letters to him. But it is not my purpose to deal with the hon. and gallant Member. I want to deal with the Bill. As it is a Catering Bill, perhaps I may be forgiven for using one or two food analogies and telling the Minister that I do not propose to smother him with butter like some other Members, but to bring, if not an apple of discord, a punnet of raspberries. The Parliamentary Secretary hoped that there would be co-operation by all those engaged in the industry. Does he really think that the history of this Measure is likely to produce that good will and co-operation which he now recognises are necessary for the future conduct of this industry under the Bill? It is not for me to prophesy, but I should think that it will take some time for the feelings of suspicion of those who are engaged in this industry to be overcome, and for them to be willing to assist in the good and efficient working of this Measure.
I have made my position clear about this Bill on more than one occasion, and I will do it again on this final stage. I regard this as a bad Bill, because it is regulation for the sake of regulation. The Minister, who, after all, as Minister of Labout is in a far better position to know than any hon. Members sitting above the Gangway, carefully disclaimed any intention of describing this as a sweated industry. He bases his claim for the Measure on something which at any rate is comprehensible to me, and that is that he wanted regulation. The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton also apparently likes regulation for its own sake. I do not. That is where we differ. I share the view which was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking) on Second Reading, that private enterprise, if it is doing its job properly, ought to be left alone to do it, and that if it is not, it ought to be controlled until it is made to do it properly. In pursuance of that doctrine, we invited the Minister to hold an inquiry to see whether the position was as bad as other people had said it was. That inquiry was refused, although the evidence shows clearly that the cloud of abuse about it being a sweated industry was largely fictitious. The report of Sir Arthur Colefax speaks as to that. Instead of an inquiry, we had this Bill, and the Min-


ister told us that he wanted it for two purposes. He wanted it for the war, and he wanted it for after the war.
I want to deal with the war-time use to which this Bill is to be put and to dissipate the view of the horn and gallant Member for Brighton about this question. Has he ever heard of the Joint Industrial Council for Industrial Canteens? Probably not. I know that the Minister has, and I know that he has dealt with the Joint Industrial Council for Industrial Canteens. It has been fobbed off by him for over six months. I have seen the correspondence, and so have other Members, and we know exactly how much sincerity attaches to the view that this Bill is necessary so that the Essential Work Order can be applied to industrial canteens. They were mentioned by the Minister himself in his Second Reading speech. No doubt that mention produced an effect on the minds of hon. Members who believed that it was helpful to the war effort to give the Minister this rather controversial Bill. Nearly nine months have passed since the Joint Industrial Council for Industrial Canteens, having set standards and wages which are as good as any to be found in similar type of work, applied to the Minister for an Essential Work Order. They did not get it, and they will not get it. Nobody will get an Essential Work Order as the result of this Bill. The Minister says that it is wanted for the war, but I think I have exploded that view.

Mr. Davidson: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in the Lyons Corner Houses in London, where a great many military, naval and Air Force personnel go for tea, etc., there is great satisfaction that they will be able to get their food from people who will receive in future a better wage than that received from the under-paid servants who serve them at the present time?

Major Gluckstein: The Minister has been very much helped by his hon. Friends hurling those charges which the Minister said he would not hurl. That is what one expects from the hon. Member. I want to come to the post-war aspect of this Bill.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us

why the Minister refuses an Essential Work Order?

Major Gluckstein: I will, indeed, tell the House why the Minister said he could not apply the Order. It was for the admirable reason that the canteens which were inviting the protection were not under the control of those who were running the factories. I leave hon. Members to consider the validity of that reason. It is the reason given in the Minister's letter which I have here.

Mr. Walkden: Perhaps the Minister will reply to that.

Major Gluckstein: I do not suppose the Minister will deal with it when he replies any more than he dealt with it on Clause 4.
What is the Bill going to do after the war? I am trying to find out, because a regular basis for post-war wage rates is impossible with the present shortage of labour and so it is impossible for anybody to form an adequate view of the position after the war. I would suggest to the Minister that the method which was adopted after the last war would have been a much easier and simpler way of meeting the possible dangers which I agree might exist, that is, of a large flood of unregulated labour coming on the market in this or any other industry. Parliament in 1918 passed the Wages (Temporary Regulations) Act to prevent a decline in wages. That could be repeated after this war, although I am bound to remind the House that after the last war there was not the catastrophic unemployment which is apparently anticipated after this one. In fact, unemployment declined to about 1 per cent. in April, 1920. After that there was a slump. The fears of the Minister are therefore not entirely justified by precedent. But let us assume he is right in thinking that he must have some Measure. What are the Commission to do now to deal with this matter after the War? And if they can do nothing now, is this the measure of social security it is held out to be? Frankly I do not think so. That is one of the reasons why I dislike the Measure. It is because it seeks to do something which may never need doing, because it seeks to regulate for its own sake, because it does not in the least help in the war effort, and because, in spite of six whole days of discussion, it is not yet really tidied up.


There are still Amendments which were brought forward to-day which another place will possibly be asked to consider. In these circumstances I think this is not the type of Measure which ought to be introduced in the middle of a great war, and I hope that the Government will have learned a lesson and will see to it that if they do introduce legislation before the end of the war they will take steps to see first of all that it is reasonably acceptable to most points of view and that it is sufficiently tidy to pass through the House without having a vast number of Amendments put down to it.
Let me say a final word on the question of the opposition. A number of Members have not been here throughout the proceedings. Clause 13 has a proviso which was the subject of a bare two columns in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage. The Minister moved an Amendment to Clause 12, as it then was, to provide that no person should be required to answer any questions or to give any evidence tending to criminate himself. That proviso was taken from the Factory Act, 1937. I believe the whole of the Sub-section, or a great part of it, was taken from that Act, but for some incomprehensible reason the proviso was left out. Was that left out through inefficiency or of deliberate purpose? One brushes aside the suggestion that a civil servant could not be relied upon accurately to copy out the proviso in a penal Clause, and one is left with the rather sinister interpretation that it was possibly left out on purpose, as a precedent, because if it had been left out on this occasion and nobody noticed that it was not in, that would be useful next time, and one more bulwark would have gone. As a lawyer I am glad to think that even under this Bill people will not be called upon to criminate themselves without being cautioned in the proper manner, because I think it is quite useful, in these days when we are giving so much power to the Executive, that some protection should still be left to the subject.
I have expressed my feelings about this Measure and the reasons why I dislike it. I do not think it has been very much improved. The appointment of assessors is entirely within the discretion of the Minister. He is not bound to appoint any if he does not wish to do so. One does not assume that the present Minister of Labour will occupy his position for the

rest of time. Other Ministers of Labour may take a different view of their obligations. What I object to in this Bill is that the whole of an industry of an extremely diverse and varied kind is really being placed under the Minister of Labour—I do not mean only this Minister of Labour, but any Minister of Labour—and placed in that position without ever having been the subject of an inquiry and of having been officially condemned. It is being executed before any of those usual legal processes have taken place.

Mr. Rhys Davies: As one who has interested himself closely in this Bill and taken some little interest in the welfare of those employed in this industry, I should like to bless the Measure, and support those who have done likewise to-day. It has been my habit occasionally to read speeches which have been made in this House over the last century or so since the passing of the first Factory Act. If hon. Members look up the records in the OFFICIAL REPORT they will find that the speeches they have made against this Bill are almost word for word identical with those uttered over the last century against every Bill of this kind. I have been in this House long enough to listen to speeches which were almost word for word the same as those delivered here to-day. This is not a catering rehabilitation Bill; it is not a catering emancipation Bill either. This is a catering wages Bill, and what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do, and I wish him success, is to lay down a scale of wages for the employees below which no one shall fall. I cannot understand those hon. Members who are connected with the catering industry in a very big way objecting to this Bill, because so far as I know, and I speak with a little knowledge, this Bill will not affect them adversely at all. Like all similar measures, it aims at reaching those who exploit their employees to the disadvantage of good employers. Take the arguments used by the hon. and gallant Member, and employed also by the hon. Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking), who sits for the next seat to mine. They say that this industry is far too complicated to be governed by a Measure like this. They cannot really put that forward as a substantial reason. I could mention an industry probably ten times as complicated as this—the distributive trades. There are great emporia in London, conduct


ing every sort of trade, who sell a motor car and a penny bar of chocolate in the very same establishment.
The best argument against those who object to this Bill is that there is not one employer of repute who has ever asked for the repeal of wages machinery like this once it has been in operation. Take the agricultural industry as an example. I was a farm labourer once myself, by the way. The strange thing about establishing decent wages and conditions in an industry is that not only does it elevate the workers, it elevates the industry itself at the same time. Take the laundry trade. I know one town—I was ashamed of it—where in 1916 adult female workers were engaged in a laundry for 56 hours a week for 8s. 6d. a week. Thanks to the efforts of one who is now a member of another place that whole business was lifted from being a sweated industry. What has happened? Not only have we raised the conditions of the employees in the laundry trade but we have improved the status of the trade itself; the whole industry has been cleaned up. And that is what is going to happen under this Bill. Hon. Members have told us of the difficulties of establishing a scale of wages in catering. How many of them were in Parliament when we had exactly the same arguments about shop hours? They said then they could not be regulated. Well, it has been done, and 2,250,000 distributive workers can thank Parliament for what it did in laying down certain conditions of employment for them. Then, whenever we have established decent conditions of employment for workpeople the profits of the employers affected have often increased. Employers ought therefore to welcome this Bill. I should not be a bit surprised if this Bill, in addition to increasing the wages of the workers, increased profits from 7½ or 10 per cent. to 15 or even 20 per cent. Catering employers will then pay a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman.
I have been in Parliament for many years and have seen many Bills and proposals of this kind brought forward, and I have also been in foreign Parliaments and listened to their proceedings, and I want to say that I am proud of this Parliament for what it has done to elevate the conditions of the people. It is no use talking of the new Jerusalem which is to come when this war is over. The people

of this country want to see a few bricks of the new edifice here and now; and one of the pillars of that new Jerusalem, and the Minister may take this as a tribute, will be this beneficent Measure.

Major Petherick: I gather from the remarks of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that he approves of this Bill. From the emphasis with which he struck the Box in front of him on repeated occasions, I would say he approves it most cordially and whole-heartedly. I, on the contrary, do not very much like the Bill, and as this is the last opportunity we shall have before it goes to another place, I should like to give the motives from which I have opposed it from its inception, motives which I believe are shared by many of my hon. Friends who have not had an opportunity so far of speaking on Second Reading or on Third Reading. I have no connection with the catering trade, and of the 100 Members who voted against the Government on Second Reading there were very few who have any connection with any branch of the trade. I think it is perfectly right that when we are discussing trade matters in this House, the views of both the employers and of the employees should if possible be heard at some stage of the proceedings, but the Bill, when it leaves the House, should be the considered, broad view of Parliament as a whole and not the view of any sectional interest.

Earl Winterton: The hon. and gallant Member talks about the employers and the employed as if all the employers were opposed to this Bill. Some of us who happen to have quite considerable shareholdings in hotels by no means oppose the Bill, and will take the opportunity, when the occasion occurs, to express our views about those who are supposed to represent us as directors who have opposed it. We as shareholders are really the owners, and not the directors.

Major Petherick: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his interruption, though I think it was a little irrelevant, because I was not saying that because in the course of these proceedings some people have stood up for the rights of employers, as others have stood up for employees, therefore employers have been opposing this Bill. I never suggested anything of the sort. What I was saying was that in


the proceedings on the Bill dealing with any industry it was right for the views of both sides to be heard, whether they spoke with a united voice or not, but that the Bill should represent the views of Parliament as a whole after having heard the evidence of the sectional interests concerned. This Coalition Government was formed with one main duty, the prosecution of the war to a successful conclusion, and therefore it seemed to me that anything which might tend to create disunity was to be deplored. When this Bill was first rumoured and 200 Conservative Members put down their names to a Motion expressing their views I think it was wrong for the Government to proceed with the introduction of the Bill.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend appreciate that the Bill was introduced in order to bring about decency, and not disunity?

Major Petherick: That is the kind of interruption which some people are accustomed to make in reply to a heckler, in the course of a not very politely fought by-election. I have said that I thought it was a mistake, but the Minister proceeded with the Bill, as he was entitled to do. I do not wish to go back and reopen the ancient controversy as to whether the Bill is controversial, but I should like to deal with two arguments which have been produced during the passage of the Bill and directed against those who took the view which I did.
We were accused of raising controversy with regard to the Bill, but that is precisely the argument that was used by Herr Hitler when he first marched into Poland and when he accused Poland of starting the war because they had the temerity to object to his entering their country. The second point was that the Bill was the result of a united Cabinet. Of course it was. Everybody knows that everything which issues from the Government is the result of the decisions of the Government as a whole. If a Minister objects to any action by any of his colleagues in bringing forward a Bill, and those objections are not agreed to, he has either to "come across" or go across—in other words, to resign from the Government. The argument that the Bill is the action of the united Government influences me not at all. I most strongly object to the false reasoning in the arguments that have been used.
During the Second Reading, and certainly afterwards, there was no obstruction from the opponents of the Bill. I would like to take up something which was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) in the course of that very charming speech, which so endeared him to Members of the Socialist Party that they cheered him madly. He said that those who were opposed to the Bill were in fact not obstructing the Bill but were using every method to kill it. The suggestion was that they were actuated solely by friendship for, and consideration for the feelings of, the employers. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that that is not the case at all. Most of those who are opposing the Bill—and it certainly applies to many of my hon. Friends—were doing so because they did not like the Bill or the circumstances of its introduction. I think my hon. and gallant Friend would be more wise in the future to give credit at least to those of his own party for decent motives rather than condemning them as he has done. He certainly will never get very far by attacking his own side.
One reason why I opposed the Bill was not because I deny that regulation may be absolutely necessary. That is another matter. Wage regulation by agreement is all to the good, and where it has been put into practice it has generally been of great benefit. But regulation from above should only take place after inquiry has ascertained the facts and when the conditions of the industry concerned have been shown to be bad. Then there is a case for regulation. If inquiry had been held, and if conditions in the catering industry had been shown to be bad, I would not have opposed the Bill at any stage, I do not take an extreme view about the Bill. I do not think it is a really bad Bill, per se, but, like all Bills, it should be properly examined during the Committee stage. In the Committee stage it is the right and duty of hon. Members to examine any Bill Clause by Clause and line by line, and not only from the party point of view, to see whether it conforms to the general party principles one has in mind. In addition to that, it should be examined most carefully and objectively to see that it is legally accurate and does what it intends to do. We should make sure that when the Bill leaves the Committee it is a good Bill.
Upon a certain occasion in the course of the Committee stage, when it looked as though the whole of the criticism of the Bill was likely to collapse and the Bill might go through in a few minutes without examination, it seemed to me our duty to continue the careful examination on the Committee stage and to see whether we could induce the Minister to improve the Bill. If we had taken the other view, that the Minister has only to bang the Box during the Second Reading and say, "In no circumstances will I give concessions," it would have rendered any Committee stage a complete farce. Our attitude during the Committee stage in hoisting the skull and crossbones was absolutely right and justified. I would like to refer to the conduct of the Minister during the passage of the Bill. I do not think he should have introduced the Bill, but that is over, and I will not mention it again, but I would like to point out that it is entirely wrong for hon. Members of the Labour Party to have the idea that those who were opposing the Bill——

Mr. Speaker: We cannot review the general conduct of hon. Members during the passage of the Bill, and the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member are now going a little wide. On the Third Reading Debate is confined to what is in the Bill.

Major Petherick: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will try to conform in the rest of my speech. I wonder whether I am entitled to say that I wanted to make it clear that hon. Members were not, and are not now on the Third Reading, opposing the Bill because the Minister is a Labour Minister. On the contrary, if a Conservative Minister had brought this Bill to the House, there would have been twice the row there has been.

Mr. Speaker: The arguments of the hon. and gallant Member are still not in Order upon the Third Reading.

Major Petherick: I am sorry, Sir. Perhaps I had better leave that point. I would like to congratulate the Minister upon his handling of the Bill, including this stage. I hope he will handle it well when he makes his Third Reading speech. The country is, broadly speaking, under a very great debt to him, not so much for bringing forward the Bill, but for his

general attitude and conduct of the Ministry of Labour. He is entitled to refuse any concession and to insist upon the Bill standing as he wishes it go through, and I think he has been very patient and courteous. I wish the Bill a better fortune—in fact, good fortune—and I hope that in future there will be very much less controversy in the country than there has been during its Committee stage. The discussions we have had have been very helpful, but I am doubtful about the value of the Bill as a whole. It will be very difficult, considering the many different forms of the industry with which the Bill will have to deal when it becomes an Act, to avoid a great deal of complication and unnecessary regulation, and I certainly do not envy the Commission their job to select, rarefy and narrow down those parts upon which wages boards are to be imposed. In conclusion, I hope there will not be a Division to-day, because I certainly should not vote. I congratulate the Minister for his patience and determination. I do not think this is a very good Bill, but I do not think it is a very bad Bill. It is good in parts, and even though it does not do a great deal of good, it will not do very much harm.

Mr. Holmes: When the Bill was introduced, a tremendous barrage of opposition arose. Every little hotel or boarding-house manager and apartment-house keeper received letters and circulars informing them that they would be ruined if the Bill were allowed to go through; or, if they were not ruined, they would be under the thumb of the Minister of Labour for the rest of their industrial life. It is not surprising that those people in all parts of the country, not having a copy of the Bill, feared that what was told them might be true, and in many cases they sent a telegram, a copy of which had been sent to them, to their Members, saying that it was imperative to vote against the Bill in order to save their livelihood. Many hon. Members who received those telegrams felt that there must be some reason for voting against the Bill. Consequently more than 100 Members went into the Lobby against the Second Reading.
It is well that we should recognise that the original opposition which caused the fuss and effort among the catering industry came from the big hotels, which did not want the Bill to go through, and it


is well, in getting rid of any opposition there may be to the Third Reading, that we should realise the reason for the opposition of the big hotels. The reason is that they were mainly foreign-managed and foreign-staffed, and depended in many cases on foreign guests. Kings, queens, potentates from abroad and wealthy people from America and the Dominions and other parts of the world, were the principal clientèle in these hotels, which were, in fact, foreign islands in our midst.
How will the Bill change all this? The Bill will put the catering profession on the same basis here as it is in other countries of the world. If one went to Germany before the war, one found only German managers and German staffs, and in France, French managers and staffs. The same principle was true of Italy and other places. It is only in this country that we have allowed the most regular trade in the world to pass into the hands of the foreigner. The Bill will change all that. I do not want it to be felt that I am expressing any disapproval of the foreigners who manage and staff the hotels and restaurants in this country.

Mr. Colegate: Would the hon. Member inform us under which Clause aliens will be excluded?

Mr. Holmes: I think I was coming to that.

Mr. Colegate: Surely the hon. Member can name the Clause.

Mr. Holmes: It will be by the Commission's recommendation. I am sorry if my hon. Friend is very anxious that the foreigners should not be excluded.

Mr. Colegate: The hon. Member has no right to say that. I asked which Clause of the Bill excluded aliens. I did not say whether I want them or not.

Mr. Holmes: The hon. Member will find that before I finish I shall explain——

Mr. Bracewell Smith: Does the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes) say that since the last war we have been able to import foreign labour for our hotels and restaurants?

Mr. Holmes: That is what I am just coming to, in giving the reasons why I think it is imperative that we should pass

this Bill at the present moment and not wait until the end of the war.

Mr. Smith: It is well known that we1 could not import foreign labour.

Mr. Holmes: I think I shall deal with that point before I finish. Let me just try and set out what is the real object of the Bill, in my opinion. It has not-been said in this House, but it has been freely said elsewhere, that the real object of the Bill was the desire of the Minister of Labour to bring additional people into the union of which he was secretary be fore he became Minister of Labour. I think that is a very trivial and mean suggestion, which can be dismissed without any further comment. The important thing about the Bill is that it is going to give to our people the right to the best conditions in the trade of the country which is the most regular of all the industries of this country. I mean by that that it does not matter whether it is a time of prosperity or a time of depression, the catering trade goes on. People want accommodation; they want food; they want drink. The object of this Bill will be to give our people the opportunity of serving in this trade as a profession. What has happened in the past has been that in places like France, Italy, Germany and Switzerland the catering trade has been professional; in this country it has been one of menial service; it was the last thing people wanted to go into.

Sir Granville Gibson: Might I inform the hon. Member that I have seen young fellows from this country serving as waiters in Switzerland who have been sent to learn the trade there?

Mr. Holmes: That is true, but very few of them. I have seen them in Vichy. They were on an exchange, arranged by a number of people like Sir Francis Towle and one or two other hoteliers in this country. So far as these other foreign countries are concerned, the catering trade has been a profession, and they have kept it for their own nationals. We let it go into the hands of foreigners during the Victorian era, when industries were doing so well, when everybody wanted to go into a factory and no one wanted to serve in a hotel or restaurant. That was when we lost it, and we have never regained it. We have now the opportunity


of regaining it, because instead of the catering business being one which is regarded as a menial service it is going to be a profession, and our people will, in that way, get far more employment.
I want to point this out. All of us want to make this country of ours a better country after the war than it was before the war. Most of us, all of us, here would like to see the Beveridge Report implemented, but the Beveridge Report depends upon employment. If there is any mass unemployment, no resolutions at public meetings are any good; the Beveridge Report falls to the ground. Here is one of the opportunities—this Catering Wages Bill—of employing more and more of our people after the war. That is, in my opinion, one of the reasons why the Minister of Labour introduced the Bill. I am grateful to him for the two assurances that he gave me during the Committee stage: firstly, that he would ask the Commission to report particularly with regard to places which had a season—he has added, since, that an assessor particularly versed in all the difficulties of these particular places will be appointed; and, secondly, that he will ask the Commission to report to the War Cabinet with regard to the repair and restoration of the equipment of undertakings which have been made shabby or derelict as a result of the war, not by enemy action, but by reason of the fact that the district in which they stand has been for so long a prohibited area. I want to congratulate the Minister of Labour, if I may, on standing up for this Bill. I believe it is most important that it should go through at the present time instead of after the war, because if we left it until after the war, we should once more have a flood of foreigners coming in from Switzerland and France, if not Germany and Italy, and if we left this until after the war, they would all be installed before we had a chance to pass a Measure in this House.

Mr. Leslie: At long last this overdue Measure has reached the stage at which it will shortly be placed on the Statute Book. A good deal of eulogy has been given to the Minister of Labour for the way the Bill has been drafted and for the reasons behind it, and I think that eulogy has been well deserved. The right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking) was far too pessimistic. He prophesied

that the Bill would fail, and that it would be a bad thing for the tourist trade. The tourist trade is likely to be improved by better catering facilities, and this Bill certainly will not do anything to prevent better catering facilities for tourists. The hon. and gallant Member for East Nottingham (Major Gluckstein) declared that it was a bad Bill. One could scarcely expect him to accept any Bill which was likely to interfere with the catering trade, because during the time when Miss Bond-field was Minister of Labour he was one of the principal opponents of the inquiry which was held into the setting up of a trade board. The hon. and gallant Member is afraid of the after-war effects. He said it would not mean any social security for the workers. I believe it will, to some extent, mean social security to the workers, which was denied to them before the war.
I have a vivid recollection of that inquiry when Miss Bondfield tried to get a trade board set up. One firm was the chief opponent. That firm catered mainly for a working class trade, but it has opposed any attempt by its workers to organise in a trade union or to get a wage-fixing machinery for the catering trade. The same arguments were used then as have always been used against the setting up of a trade board. The same arguments were used when trade boards were proposed for the sweated trades. Jeremiahs then prophesied disaster, but no trade has gone out of business since a trade board was established for it; many are more prosperous than they were before. Fair employers have welcomed trade boards, because they eliminate cutthroat competition. Mention has been made of the number of aliens employed in this industry. Undoubtedly, aliens have been preferred in the past to British workpeople, because they were satisfied to depend on the generosity of customers in the way of tips. I hope that under the Bill the wages board will establish such a rate of wages that British workers will be induced to enter the catering trade. Many of them are being trained to-day in camps as waiters and cooks.

Mr. Francis Watt: Opposition to the Second Reading of a Bill does not necessarily mean opposition to the basic principles. May I wish the Minister of Labour all success for this Bill now that it has reached this stage? For myself, I feel that there ought


to have been an inquiry before we proceeded to legislate for so complicated an industry as the catering industry. I still think so. I would not pretend that there are many things which the right hon. Gentleman might still improve, and I hope that improvements will arise. A good deal depends upon this Commission which is to be appointed. I only want to back up my hon. Friend the Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Davidson) in something he said regarding the Commission. This Bill applies to Scotland. I strongly support my hon. Friend's suggestion that we should have a commissioner from Scotland on the Commission; and when Scottish affairs come to be discussed, I hope there will be some assessors from Scotland also. I only want to express the hope that some good will arise from the Bill, and to wish the right hon. Gentleman all success with it.

Sir Ralph Glyn: The reception which the House has given to this Third Reading shows that, generally speaking, Members have come to recognise that this Measure is going to be beneficial to the catering industry as a whole. The Minister has shown a great deal of conciliatory spirit considering the opposition. This Bill indicates the value of controversy in this House. It certainly should not prevent other controversial measures being brought in. We are here for the purpose of controversy; we shall get no progress without it. This is an example of real progress.
There are three points to which I hope the Minister will address himself when he replies. First, in such parts of the industry as already have wages boards in connection with other employees, I hope the Commission will at once study the possibility of setting up wages boards without delay for those parts of the industry. I refer in particular to the railway industry. We could not exist a single day in that industry without the trade unions and the very admirable machinery which has been set up, and I should like to see the catering part of the railway industry associated, through the ordinary channels that deal with disputes on other matters. If the Minister would direct the Commission to look into that matter, I think he would find that progress would be rapid and on sound lines. There is one matter which I do

not think has been mentioned during the passage of this Bill. It is the evil results which followed from Victorian legislation making it illegal for any eating house or public house to have transparent windows. That has brought about worse conditions inside those places than would have existed if they had been open to the street. I think that a direction to the Commission on that matter would be approved by all those responsible for the architecture of public houses in town and country. We want to see these places become meeting houses for the whole community, without any reflection on those who go to them, and we want to make not only those who serve, but those who are served, happier. Abroad all the cafes are open. There is nothing disgraceful about going in to have a glass of beer or something else to drink. Why in this country we should be hidden behind frosted glass or curtains when we do so, I cannot think.
I do not think it will be possible to satisfy the demand that will arise for employment in the catering trade, because the publicity given to this Bill has encouraged many men and women in the Services to believe that after the war they can go into an industry with properly-regulated wages and with a prospect of life-long work. I hope that that will happen, but it is no use holding out these hopes until an arrangement is made for the proper equipment and construction of new places. I believe that the demand for employment will exceed the capacity to employ. It is of great importance that the Commission should address itself to the improvement of the conditions of country hotels especially, and of those hotels which have been requisitioned by the Services, because the Ministry of Works can give no assurance that the labour will be available to put all these places into proper condition.
If we are genuine in our desire that the Bill should do something to give employment after the war, it is surely essential that the Departments which deal with building and materials and the rest of it, should have these businesses on their priority lists. It will be a very difficult thing to decide priorities, but we shall not get the catering industry satisfactorily set up in this country, in spite of this Bill, unless real attention is given to this very urgent problem.
There is one other matter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes) did not want to suggest that we should get inside our insular shell and learn nothing from Continental practice. Nothing is more healthy than the exchange of opinions between the people of this country and people abroad, not only as to their life but their habits. It would be a disaster to refuse either to accept people from abroad or to send our own people abroad to learn the methods of other countries. If any industry can be called international, it is the catering Industry. We have nothing to lose from it but much to gain. I should be sorry if foreigners were prohibited from coming here. They should be admitted, on the understanding, of course, that they accept conditions and wages laid down for our workers, so as to get away from any suggestion of introducing foreign labour to bring down the status of British labour.
I do not believe that the British individual is naturally a good waiter. I am thankful that it is much more often a type of foreigner who is subservient and does not mind being sent on messages. I like the rough and rugged independence of the Englishman. I am not sure we shall get all the waiters we want until we learn that there is a great deal of skill and social service connected with that part of the catering industry. In Switzerland, the business of catering and hotel management is rated extremely high. There are trade meetings with groups of schools so that School children themselves can learn the branch of the industry they wish to enter. The right hon. Gentleman, in collaboration with the President of the Board of Education, might very well ascertain to what extent encouragement should be given in schools, and I hope that children in schools will continue to learn both to cook and to serve meals, and after that training, pass on to the catering trade of the country.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the hon. Gentleman mean high schools?

Sir R. Glyn: All schools. I believe the Bill will be of great assistance in the postwar reconstruction of the country, and the Minister is to be congratulated upon the manner in which he has piloted it through the House.

Mr. Lewis: In spite of the opposition which this Bill met on Second Reading and in the earlier stages of the Committee, I hope that it may be possible to secure the Third Reading of the Bill without a Division. The reason why I hope so is that the Bill marks a new phase in the history of Parliamentary action with regard to the relations between employers and workers. For many years, after the right to combine in trade unions was first gained, it was always felt to be an answer, if complaint was made in any industry that wages were inadequate, that the workers had the opportunity to combine and get them improved. Only in comparatively recent years has it been recognised that there are some trades where it is not, in fact, possible to secure sufficiently effective combination among the workers to bring effective pressure to bear, if conditions are bad. It was in order to deal with such cases that the idea of the wages board was first evolved. The Minister of Labour has made it abundantly plain that he does not base his case for this Bill on the existence of sweated conditions in the catering trade. He bases his claim, as I understand it, on this argument. No matter whether the wages and conditions in an industry be good, bad or indifferent, nevertheless, if there is no machinery whereby the representatives of the workers can have a say in the settling of wages and conditions of labour in the industry, then, such machinery should be provided. I believe that argument to be sound, and if there were nothing more in the Bill than that, I would support it.
The Bill however goes further even than that. I think the Minister reminded us that, if you have a wages board and representatives of employers and workers meet to discuss only questions affecting wages and conditions of labour, it is not conducive to the growth of an accommodating spirit between the two parties. They are on opposite sides of the table and at opposite ends of the argument. He pointed out to us that, if it is possible for the members of such a board to consider together, matters of common interest, the troubles from which their industry suffers and the possibilities of improvement in the industry, you thereby tend to produce among the members of the board a sense of unity and an accommodating spirit which were absent before. If it is desired that a


wages board should be encouraged to consider not merely wages and, in the narrowest sense, the conditions of labour in an industry, or part of an industry, if it is desired to go further afield and to discuss problems of common interest in regard to the present conditions or future of the industry, then it seems obvious that you must create in the minds of its members the idea that, when they have taken the trouble to work out a practicable scheme for getting over difficulties and making improvements, all that labour will not be wasted. All that is provided specifically in this Bill, so far as the catering industry is concerned. For that second reason I personally welcome the Bill most heartily.
A very great opportunity will be given to the members of the Commission appointed under the Bill, and also to a considerable extent to the members of any wages boards that may be set up subsequently, to show what can be done in this country in the post-war world to foster between employers and workers in industry a sense of community of interest. It is of enormous importance to the future of industry and I believe that the proceedings of the Commission and of any wages boards which may be set up will be watched with interest far beyond the borders of the catering trade. I think it holds out possibilities of something which, if it is proved to work well in practice, may be copied with advantage in other industries. I think it is desirable, because of the importance of the principles involved, that this House should resolve to-day to give the Bill a Third Reading, without a Division.

Mr. Woods: I would like to pay my tribute to the Minister of Labour for the way he has handled this Bill. I am certain that he, at any rate, feels that we now have peace after the storm. I failed utterly to understand the violent opposition which the very suggestion of this Bill provoked, long before it was submitted in detail and I think it fortunate for the country and the catering trade, that we have a Minister of Labour who has shown such courage and ingenuity in overcoming this difficulty. To legislate for a complicated trade like the catering trade was no easy task and I endorse that the hopes expressed to-day that the Bill, when it becomes operative, will not only be of considerable benefit to those

interested in the industry but will be a tremendous stimulus towards communal feeling of a more satisfactory type throughout a much larger percentage of the population in the future. I also failed completely to appreciate why there should have been such bitter opposition to the Bill, because I have had some experience of the catering industry conducted by the Co-operative Movement. Nearly every large Society has a very efficient and satisfactory refreshment department or cafe where, for many years, this work has been carried on. For all members of the staffs there have been recognised trade union rates of pay and hours of work, and the service which has been given in return has been entirely satisfactory from the point of view of the quality and quantity of the meals provided at prices within the compass of the average working-class family. The Co-operative Movement solved the problem and there is no reason why their standard should not become the general standard.
I welcome this Bill because it will help the catering industry and those engaged in it, by putting them on the same basis as that already achieved in some cases and I think the Minister of Labour will be able to get a considerable amount of help from men and women who have had long experience in creating the standard which I know he desires. There has been some difference expressed during the Debate on the question of the number of foreigners employed in the industry. As a sound internationalist I think it is all to the good that there should be some intermingling [An HON. MEMBER: "Not too many."] One of my hon. Friends says "Not too many." As far as the Co-operative Movement is concerned, I do not know of one foreign waiter or waitress. That is the result of a decent standard of living. Remuneration counts more than any other factor in setting up the standard. The question of foreign competition will, normally, settle itself under this Bill. There will be hotels and restaurants where, for the convenience of the clientele, various languages will be spoken. Just as an Englishman travelling abroad finds pleasure in being understood and answered in his own language, so we must have the vision of the days when this country will be visited by a far greater number of people from the Continent and America than we have been accustomed to in the past. We must establish our-


selves as first-class caterers and if the Bill does something in that direction, it will become a national asset. Once more, I pay my tribute to the integrity, courage, ingenuity and Parliamentary patience of the Minister of Labour in his handling of the misguided opposition directed against the Bill in its early stages.

Mr. Colegate: Now that we have the Bill as amended, I join with others in the hope that it may realise all the wishes of the Minister of Labour. I have not been convinced by the course of our Debates that an inquiry preceding it would not have been very much better. The arguments put forward by Members in support of the Bill quite ignore the fact that the excellent effects to which they referred in other cases arose entirely because trade boards were established after inquiry. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was quite eloquent about the results of establising trade boards after an inquiry, an argument which would have provided marvellous powder and shot at an earlier stage of these discussions for those who wished to see an inquiry before legislation was introduced. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) spoke of storms and bitter opposition to the Bill. You, Mr. Speaker, with all your experience, must know what an exaggeration that was. We had here a friendly little party with the Minister who gave a number of concessions which we appreciate and, what is more important, gave a number of assurances which largely met the particular type of criticism I was concerned to make. On that I would like to say a word, or two.
It has been said over and over again, and it was said in most violent terms by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Major Marlowe) who had so far taken no part in the proceedings on the Bill, that the opposition to the Bill came from vested interests. Let me say that I have not been connected with any vested interests in any shape or form. There is not a big hotel in my constituency. I am concerned with exactly the opposite; I am concerned with something that a great many hon. Members will have to be increasingly concerned with, and that is, the effect of this legislation on small people who have not the necessary accounting staff and legal aid which the big hotels have. The big hotels can look

after themselves. I should be glad to see any inquiry which gave a proper wages board or induced the formation of a union which, after all, is far the best way of dealing with wages. We have seen the problem dealt with in that way in one industry after another where there has been an adequate and efficient trade union dealing with a proper body of employers. I hope that one result of the Bill will be the creation of an efficient and adequate trade union in the catering industry so that the employees can get together with the employers by the usual means of collective bargaining.
This Bill does not deal with one large organised industry, but with an industry which is more widespread than any other industry in this country. In many towns one cannot go into a single street without seeing one or more catering establishments. What I am concerned about is to see that the small people, the maiden ladies who set up tea-shops and the small lodging-house keepers, are not harried and worried, or dealt with harshly. On that subject we have had some assurances from the Minister. There is a provision in the Bill that officials can go to these establishments, ask questions and take down in writing the answers, and then ask the person to sign the document. That may seem a very simple matter to people who have adequate staff and legal aid at their disposal, but to many small people it is a process which they thoroughly dislike. I hope it will not be regarded as obstruction on the part of these small people if they refuse to sign those statements until they have had an opportunity of consulting a solicitor.

Mr. Davidson: Free?

Mr. Colegate: No, I presume they will pay the ordinary fees, but if the hon. Member were to put down an Amendment that there should be free legal advice, I would support him. It is, however, a fact that this matter will cause a great deal of worry and hardship to much the larger number of the people concened. I am not in the least concerned about the vested interests, but about the small people at seaside resorts, watering places, and other tourist centres. They are very worried at the present time by bureaucracy and red tape and they look upon this Bill as likely to put more bureaucracy and red tape upon them. [HON. MEMBERS:


"No."] Hon. Members who say "No" do not live in constituencies like mine. In my constituency people are very bothered by these things. I challenge any hon. Member from any constituency to say that the people of his constituency are not bothered by bureaucracy and red tape.

Mr. E. Walkden: I deny it.

Mr. Colegate: Then the hon. Member has not consulted his constituency. Not long ago I fought a by-election, and at such a by-election one hears objections to bureaucracy and red tape.

Mr. Speaker: General objections to bureaucracy go rather far from the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Colegate: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but, after all, power is given in the Bill to these officers to enter establishments and take statements in writing. It was on that point that I was making my remarks. There are two things more that I want to say. In the first place, with regard to aliens, I do not think some hon. Members realise what is the legal position. The Home Office and Ministry of Labour had ample powers before this Bill was introduced to restrict the entry of aliens into this country. Secondly, I think the method by which this Bill was introduced was not altogether the best method. In a case where there is legislation covering a vague and widely spread industry such as the catering industry, there might have been a very great deal more precision if there had been an inquiry first.
It is not that anyone does not want the industry to have decent wages. Everybody wants to see decent wages. As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, it is equally to the advantage of employers and employed that there should be good wages and conditions, which lead to a better industry and prevent unfair competition. There is absolutely no reason against good wages and conditions, but there is every reason against introducing legislation so vague that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people do not know whether or not they come under the legislation. I admit that the Minister, as I understood him, did give assurances in the course of the Debate that a very large number of those people would not be included within the scope of the Bill. I wish this had

been included in the Bill and made a little clearer, because when the cases come to the courts the Minister may not be here, and I am afraid that, in any case, the courts do not pay very much attention to good intentions expressed in Debates in this House. Subject to this, however, I join in congratulating the Minister on the Bill. I thank him for the way he has met us, and still more, for the assurances he has given. I hope that the picture to which he referred in his Second Reading speech may come to be put on canvass so that we may all admire it.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour must be feeling weary and heavily laden after the compliments, tributes and bouquets that have been handed to him in various speeches in this Third Reading Debate. I am sorry I interrupted the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) when he talked about bureaucracy and resented my acceptance of his challenge. He talked about harassed maiden ladies who had started teashops being subjected to all sorts of inquiries and inquisitions and said their trials and tribulations would be added to by this Bill. I believe that the advice which a young lad gave to me when I first came to the House was quite right, although at the time I did not accept it. He advised me to beware of people bluffing. I believe that, with regard to this Bill, that advice was right. Most of the arguments that have been used this afternoon after hon. Members had paid tributes to the Minister have been largely mixed with bluff. They know that their arguments are not true. For instance, 2,000,000 shop workers were brought within the ambit of trade board regulations not long ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "After inquiry."] What inquiry? There was not very much inquiry in the House, except that some hon. Members bluffed that it could not be done, but then, when the war emergency made them face the gravity of the situation, they accepted it. Has there been anxiety on the part of the maiden ladies who keep shops? Certainly not. Nor have there been many prosecutions.
Let me carry the argument a stage further. When the hon. Member for The Wrekin says that the Bill will add to their worries and anxieties, may I suggest to him that he looks at the milk industry and its relation to the trade boards? The


Milk Trade Board has been a blessing to the milk industry, and it and the Milk Marketing Board have made it almost a gold mine for those who run it. There were all kinds of practices in the industry which were distasteful to us and we were glad to have this kind of regulation, and so were the employers, because it simply meant that there could not be any more sweating. There were good employers in the industry, as there are good employers in the catering trade, but there are also some bad ones. If the Bill does nothing more than raise the dignity and status of the labour employed, it will be worth while, Having listened to what is being said in the country, I believe that the mass of the people welcome the Bill. I believe members of the Forces welcome it, and now that I hear everyone divorcing himself from the trade and saying he has no interest in it, I am wondering where all this literature, all this agitation, all the directed campaigns that there were up and down the country really sprang from. It is not an accident that so many Amendments were tabled. It is not an accident that when some of us dared even to use simple, inoffensive, harmless words, such as "obstruction," Members opposite objected, but it has been obstruction.

Mr. Colegate: On a point of Order. Is it a harmless expression or is it out of Order to use the word "obstruction"?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is out of Order.

Mr. E. Walkden: I was ruled out of Order at the time and I am not sure that it was not the hon. Member himself who raised the point of Order. Anyhow, it was delaying action and those responsible knew it. That is what they have been doing all the time. I maintain that good employers welcome the Bill, organised workers in the industry welcome it, consumers welcome it, and I believe, generally speaking, the House welcomes it. The opposition to it has completely vanished. The Bill will lay the foundation for wages and conditions in the industry immediately and after the war, and you may rest assured that the organised workers will see to it that we use the machine and good employers will help us to do so.

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: I approach the Third Reading of the Bill from a point of view slightly different from that of a number of my hon. Friends. I was originally opposed to the introduction of the Bill, I rather doubtfully voted in favour of the Second Reading, and I have now come to the conclusion that the Bill may be an advantage to the country as a whole. That, at any rate, shows that it is advisable to come here not only to speak but sometimes to listen as well. Although I rather deplore that certain of my hon. Friends voted against the Second Reading, I believe it would be a tragedy if any body of opinion in the House were to be deterred from speaking their mind because of suggestions that they were either unpatriotic in wartime, or were voicing some sectional interest. If we ever reach that stage we shall have reached the time when Parliament will be very near its decline and death.
I should like to deal with one or two of the principal objections raised by certain of my own colleagues in regard to the Bill. It seems to me that the three main objections put forward were that it was controversial legislation in wartime, that there should have been a public inquiry before it was introduced, and that the personnel of the Commission was not one which could deal with so difficult and comprehensive an industry as the catering trade. From the start, I took the view that the first argument was the weakest that my hon. Friends urged. Any form of legislation must be, to some extent, controversial, because we shall never all think alike so long as we have those liberties which, as Englishmen, we always claim. I do not think anyone who has even a small knowledge of the catering trade can fail to realise that in so diverse an industry, which ranges from the great hotel down to the small lodginghouse, there must be a great differentiation in wages and conditions, and such a differentiation is not good for the workers in the industry as a whole.
There is no new principle involved in the State dealing with the conditions and wages of a trade. It is as old, if not older than trade boards. The Minister dealt with it on the Second Reading and I thought his point was a very strong one. He said that in 1930 an effort was made to deal with the catering industry through


trade boards and the main argument put forward against that method was that the catering trade was too comprehensive for a trade board to handle. So a different system has been adopted—the system laid down in this Measure. I am bound to say that I can see nothing detrimental to the principles of the party to which I belong in regulating wages in industry as such. It is not a political principle. It is no infringement of any political principle.
The second point, to which my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) referred, is the question of prior inquiry before legislation. That was an argument which had a good deal of weight with me at the time this Measure was introduced. I thought that there was a strong case for an inquiry before legislation. I have been converted from that view in the course of the Debate. I was particularly impressed by a speech made by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) on Second Reading in which he stressed the fact that were we to set up an inquiry into the conditions of the catering trade in war time, it could give only a partial picture of the conditions as a whole at a time when the trade is very much in a state of transition and a great deal of its work is no longer going on. It is in a state of flux and, as a result of the war, better wages are being earned than at any other time. No inquiry or commission set up at any particular period could give a fair picture of the catering trade over a long period of years. It varies almost from year to year. The catering trade in time of trade depression is completely different from the catering trade in times when industry is going well and when there is a great deal of employment and money to be spent. I am forced to the conclusion that if we are to handle the industry, we need to have a permanent Commission which can consider the conditions of the industry at all times—consider it in war time now and reconsider it in time of peace; examine it both in periods of prosperity and in periods of depression if unfortunately we have them.
It must be a Commission with a comprehensive knowledge of the industry derived from study year in and year out. I am certain that it would be an advantage if we could in some way plan now to deal with the men and women who will come into the industry at the end of the war. If thousands of men and women

came back into a disorganised industry at the close of the war, the chaos might be such that it would take years to undo the mess. I have been converted on these grounds to the view that simply to set up an inquiry before legislating would not meet the needs of the industry from the point of view of either employer or employed.
There is one point on which my hon. Friends had rather a strong case. That was in regard to the personnel of the Commission. I though it was very fair to argue that such a Commission would not be sufficiently instructed to tackle so wide an industry. The concession which has been made to allow technical assessors to be appointed to assist the Commission on every phase of its work is a concession of first-rate importance to the working of the Measure. In regard to that I would quite bluntly say two things. If the Minister had been in a position on Second Reading to lay down that these assessors would be added to the Commission he would have taken away a great deal of the force of the opposition to the Bill. On the other hand, I think that those hon. Members who, after opposing the Second Reading and putting down a number of Amendments, which they were perfectly entitled to do, then ran away from those Amendments, did their utmost to avoid getting any concessions at all. The House owes a debt of gratitude to those hon. Members, whether for or against the Bill, who deliberately went on to make the Committee stage a really live issue and to show that Parliament really meant something. They played a certain part in getting the concession which has made this Bill a far better Measure than it would have been had it been left as it was on Second Reading.
There are only two other minor points to which I would refer. I regret that under Clause I of the Bill it has not been possible to exempt what might be described as the family business. I realise that it was difficult to frame words which would deal with those members of the family who were not actual workers but had an interest in the profits of the undertaking. If the Commission will bear in mind, as I hope it will, what has been said in the Debates, it ought to be possible for it to realise that family concerns do not bear satisfactorily undue interference and it should be possible for that difficulty to be overcome in practice. I regard Clause 6 as almost the most im-


portant Clause, because it goes right down to the question not only of wages, but of the welfare of those in the industry. There is nothing I welcome more than that Clause. I say to my right hon. Friend, however, as I have said during the Committee stage, that I still feel some doubt whether a wages board is an ideal body to consider the development of an industry apart from the welfare of those in the industry involved. I hope that if it transpires that the wages board, when dealing with the two-fold work of welfare and making recommendations about the future of the industry, does not appear ideal for the purpose, it will be regarded as worth while to set up a special body to deal with the vitally important issue of post-war extensions of the catering industry. Apart from that I welcome the Measure.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, having had an extremely easy and successful passage with this Bill, will not consider that the very mild opposition he has met is, of necessity, characteristic of the sort of opposition he might have in the House if he were to introduce a worse Bill. The House of Commons is not quite dead and will not be, I hope, for many years. I believe that this Bill will be an advantage to the good employers, and I hope that I shall always feel that my interest is with them and not with bad employers. It will be an advantage, too, to the workers as a whole. Speaking as a Tory, I wish the Bill "God speed."

Sir Frank Sanderson: As one of those Members who were unfortunate not to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading Debate on the Bill, I rise to support and welcome it. In its initial stages I rather felt that my right hon. Friend was likely to have a rough passage. I refer to those early stages before the Bill had seen the light of day and to the opposition which was shown to it in advance. It has been some satisfaction to me, and I have no doubt also to my right hon. Friend, that he has had a comparatively light task to perform, for the vigorous opposition which was shown in the early days gradually disappeared. I put that down to the fact that the more those who opposed the Bill studied it and the more they heard my right hon. Friend during the Committee stage, the more they appreciated it. The war has reached a stage when

important Bills must be passed if we are not to find ourselves as unprepared for peace as we were for war. The failure of Parliament to anticipate post-war problems would, in my opinion, only demonstrate the weakness of our democratic institutions, and bring them into discredit. This Bill is termed controversial, but what Bill worth its salt is not? After all, we do not profess to be a mutual admiration society, and if we are to avoid controversy, we shall get nowhere. In a Coalition Government there should be sufficient co-operation to see that such Bills are placed on the Statute Book with the minimum amount of opposition and in the minimum time. A Coalition Government, to justify itself, must not be static but virile and active.
What does this Bill really express? What is it that the Minister desires to do? He desires to have conditions in the catering trade governed by an organisation which provides a satisfactory wage structure, to improve working conditions and to eliminate low wages, excessive hours and bad accommodation, and I doubt whether there are any hon. Members in this House who desire otherwise. It is not a party matter. All good employers stand for fair wages and conditions in their industries and indeed it has surprised me that my right hon. Friend did not bring a Bill of this kind before the House at an earlier period.
I wish to make one point, and that is to remind the House that this Measure will have far-reaching effects in one direction. For years preceding the war this country exported, in round figures, about £500,000,000 worth of goods annually and imported some £900,000,000 worth of goods. The gap was filled by our so-called invisible exports, primarily the income from our overseas investments. During the war the major portion of these investments has been pledged in order to enable the Government to pay for goods required for war purposes, and many of those which remains are paying little or no interest. Income from abroad represents purchasing power in foreign markets, and here is where my right hon. Friend's Bill will come to the assistance of the country. By seeing to it that there is first-class accommodation provided in all our holiday resorts, with a happy army of workers who should be regarded not as some inferior class but should be regarded as being in a profession that holds out


great possibilities for promotion, he will attract hundreds of thousands of guests from overseas who will bring their money to our shores, and in this way the gap between our exports and our imports can in a great measure be bridged. A great new industry can be brought into existence capable of employing perhaps 1,500,000 or even 2,000,000 workers. Communal feeding has come to stay in every grade of society. Works canteens and catering in our factories will be a regular feature of industry. There is little doubt that British Restaurants will increase and be developed in all directions. By building up goods hotels throughout the country we shall encourage people to come from all over the world to see this little island that has stood up so well against this war. By the building of good hotels—efficiently equipped and staffed—it is possible to put this great industry on a new footing, and develop what may prove to a great new prosperous industry.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I feel very grateful to everybody who has offered me congratulations on the passage of the Bill and for the part I have played in it, although I want to assure the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Essex (Flight-Lieutenant Raikes) that no one knows better how to appraise the value of votes of thanks than I do. I have always found them the most expensive presents I have ever received, especially when they have been carried at the right hour of the night. I have always been used to both censure and praise, and I can only tell the hon. and gallant Member that I have been more often right when I have been censured than when I have been praised. I liked his warning to me about a future Bill. He said he thought I would get into trouble if I brought in a worse Bill. I do not think I shall. Where I shall get into trouble is when I bring in better Bills. That is where my trouble will really lie. It has been said that I was all wrong in introducing the Bill because there was some promise about controversial legislation during the war. Let me tell hon. Members this: I was never asked, and I never gave, any promise to any person that I would not introduce controversial legislation.

Sir Granville Gibson: Did not the Prime Minister do so?

Mr. Bevin: From time to time at the opening of our Sessions the Prime Minister advances arguments about taking Members' time and gives a reply as to the course of Government policy for that Session. I want to kill this assumption that we entered into this Government on some sort of pledge. I never did. I do not want it to get outside this House that I did. I was asked to come into this Government to take on a very awkward job, and that is all that I promised to do, and which I have tried to do to the best of my ability; but I gave no pledge about anything. I want to make that clear, because I have had many letters written on the assumption that I somehow entered the Government on a promise that I would not do anything except it were for the war effort. I want to tell my own constituency, and the people I represented before I entered this House, that I gave no such pledge nor was asked to. I have carried on upon the decision of the Government as a whole, and as the Government as a whole come to their decision I stand or fall by that decision of the Cabinet.

Sir G. Gibson: As far as my memory serves me, the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking) did not accuse the Minister of having given a promise but stated definitely that the Prime Minister had given a promise. The complaint was against the Prime Minister and not against my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Bevin: I have made my position clear at any rate, whatever the complaints are. The other suggestion was that I did not announce this concession, if that is what it is called. I never looked upon it as a concession. I wanted the Bill to be workable, and I wanted the most practical suggestions I could get to make it workable. Nor did I introduce it in response to my hon. Friend's Amendment. I was trying to the best of my ability to find the best possible way to make the Commission effective, and an hon. Member of this House made a suggestion to me as to how I could probably get expert assistance, and I immediately proceeded to try to work it out. That is what occurred. It was no force, no bribe, no speeches; none of it. I want to be quite frank about the matter. It was a suggestion dropped to me as to how I could accomplish the independence of the Commission. I hope


I am always receptive to any Member who has an idea.

Mr. de Rothschild: It shows the value of debate.

Mr. Bevin: It did not happen to come in the Debate. It was made outside, and in an atmosphere at any rate a little more congenial. However, I am indebted to the hon. Member for the suggestion that was made to me. I do not belittle what hon. Members say, but I frankly do not believe that whatever I had put into the Bill for that Second Reading would have made the slightest difference. I had talks and negotiation; I tried to negotiate, but I was told from the beginning, before ever I produced the Bill at all, that I was going to be fought to the death. I do not complain at all, but I want to make the position clear, because I may have to handle other delicate matters in the future. No one will find any Minister more willing than I am to consider ideas how to make things workable. In fact, as I have often said, I have never had really a sympathetic audience. As a trade union leader handling this kind of constructive work, as we have in connection with the device of the Bill, my experience is to have to persuade employers to pay what they do not want to pay and then to go back to the men who complain that I have sold them. It is a good training for the job of getting a Bill like this one through.
There are a few points I should like to clear up. First, there is confusion in hon. Member's minds with regard to the trade board procedure. I have tried several times, in Committee and on Second Reading, to make it clear. There is a sort of feeling that before you have a trade board you have an inquiry. You do not have anything of the kind. The Minister decides whether there shall be a trade board, and it is only after he publishes his draft Order and there is a challenge to the Order, that there is an inquiry, and even then the Minister can go on with his Order. If he alters his Order as the result of the inquiry, he then has to re-advertise it. I wish hon. Members to get it quite clear, because there is no preliminary inquiry other than that. There has also been a great deal of argument about bureaucracy, and the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) made a great point of it; but what is the inquiry held before you de-

cide to establish a trade board? It is a purely private, bureaucratic inquiry. You send your officials out to go around to collect a lot of evidence together, which you never publish, and you decide whether or not you proceed with your Order.
The Bill—and this was one of my difficulties—provides for a Commission to make all those investigations, not a few much-criticised bureaucratic officials, going around in that manner. Therefore I think, with regard to the argument that I have increased bureaucracy and all the rest of it, that I have gone just the other way in establishing something which I think is far preferable to the old trade board machinery, which I was never really happy about myself.
The other point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), was that where machinery exists over a whole field of industry like railways can it remain within the railway system, I assume for their hotel trade? I cannot say what the Commission will recommend, and it is only fair to the Commission that they should take the evidence. There are two points of view, no doubt, that will be put before them as to whether the railway hotels should be in a wages board with hotels of a similar character, or whether they should be in the railway conciliation machinery. That is a point which can only be determined after evidence and advice have been taken. It would not be right for me to try to determine it in advance. I understand that even in the railway service itself there are two points of view on that point. Therefore, I must leave it to the Commission to investigate.
Then there is the question of investigating the evils of the closed bar. That all comes in; I do not know whether you would call it so much rehabilitation as the regeneration of the industry. Personally, I have never been in favour of the closed bar with the sealed-up windows, and the thick smoke, bad ventilation and all the rest of it. I think it is all just stupid. It all arose at a time when we had, I think, quite wrong conceptions about these things. I believe the more that is done in the open the better it is for everyone concerned. That is a rational thing to do, and personally I would rather see the system of the open bar than see all the people standing around outside, with mugs on the window


sills and all that kind of rather unseemly thing because the inside is too small. If anything can be done that has a tendency to go against the herd-like habits that grew up out of the Victorian period in this refreshment trade, I think the better it will be for the health of everyone. However, that is a matter which can be investigated.
The other point was raised by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes), as well as my hon. Friend to whom I have just referred, the question of rehabilitation and priorities. As I said in the reply I made in Committee, no Parliament would be willing to hand to a Commission executive powers over Government finance. I think my hon. Friend would be the first to object if anyone brought forward such a proposal. We are trying to measure this problem in a different way, as he will see in other proposals as the Session goes on. What stands out prominently, I think, is that we cannot grapple with this problem of employment, decent wages and all the rest of it unless the dominating factor, the yardstick, is man-power and energy and how you use it, and the opportunities for using it. Therefore, when I said in Committee that we would get the Commission to give priority in considering it it was because this is one of the means of creating opportunities for employment. That is one thing which my right hon. Friend will agree with me in, I think.
At the end of this war there should be very little need for new factories. There will be an over-productive capacity on the manufacturing side. You have only to look around, and that is obvious. Therefore, while you have housing, even when you measure your building and look at it purely from a man-power point of view, there is available labour which can be diverted for problems of this character, because instead of there being the normal construction which would have gone on in the ordinary way for industry, we have over-built, at least for a number of years. Surely we shall not pull that down and allow other construction to be built and thus waste capital. That would be just stupid. As to the problems facing hon. Members in seaside places, I would say it is not only the seaside. It is over the whole field that this matter has to be taken up, only under separate headings and with a differentiation of claims.
The other point which has been raised is the question of training. The Ministry of Labour has a great task, covering a very wide range of industry, with regard to training. We want this catering business to have its proper place and rank pari passu with the claims of other industries in the training which is to be developed. We shall be very glad of, and I am sure we shall have, the help of the President of the Board of Education, and there will be special problems arising the treatment of which this Bill will facilitate. It is obvious that in the field of education and training for the adolescent things are moving very fast, and the form of training and part-time education and all the rest of it for our young people will affect this industry very much. Just as we shall have to talk over with other industries how we are going to manipulate and apply it, so to meet the special case of this industry the President of the Board of Education and other Departments will very gladly receive advice.
Exchange between this and other countries did take place, but I am sure the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bracewell Smith) will appreciate that it was on a very limited scale. I would like to see, when Europe, America, and the other countries settle down at the end of the war, the development of agreed exchanges in which the opportunities were wider. I would like also to see the sycophancy taken out altogether from the workpeople's point of view. I take the view that whatever steps are taken to exchange people between one country and another and one race and another, it means that something is being done more than making waiters; it can go a long way to build up understanding between peoples if you treat the people right that you are sending abroad and equally if you treat the people right whom you get here.
I hope I am not digressing, but it has a tremendous bearing on this. In the Prime Minister's speech he talked about the Europe he visualised. Well, I visualised that Europe in connection with this problem, the tourists and everything else, and with an entirely different conception of what will have to be in this business at the end of the war. It was all this kind of thing that led me to promote this Bill. The hon. Member for Dulwich says it does not go far enough. I know it does not. I know that he has tried. I do not


remember whether it was actually introduced, but certainly I remember seeing—[Interruption.]—it was introduced—a catering Bill in this House, but it did not make much progress. I think that was a pity. I am not criticising that, but I believe that the Commission will give this House, as time goes on, a considered body of possible legislation for the development of a great new industry. I call it a great new trade in this country, but I cannot see how you can begin it unless you begin in the moderate form embodied in this Bill. You must pull labour and the employers, those people serving in the industry, together, and you must create sufficient belief in the fathers and mothers who are going to put their children in the industry that there is a career and a future in it if you are going to get rid of the sycophancy and all the rest of it that has been associated with the industry in the past. Then you will produce a different, and better, type of staff.
I do not think it is derogatory for a Britisher to be a waiter, a chef or anything else of that character; but we want to lift the profession on to a level which will be attractive. The splitting up of the boards for various parts of the industry, to which one hon. Member referred, will have the effect, I think, of attracting different types. At present there is too much of a tendency to look upon catering as if it was all one thing, from a teashop to a hotel or a youth hostel, to say, "A waiter is a waiter," and so on. This division will tend to attract the right temperaments to the right branches of the industry, and will certainly help my Ministry, in the other field of training, to have a better chance of knowing what to train for, and what types we should be trying to get into the industry. I express my very grateful thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich for his kind offer, as the President of the Hotel Association—an offer, which I always believed I should get, in spite of those little ever-present conflicts which went on—not with him, of course, but with some of those concerned in the agitation. I always believed that that great Association would, in its own interest, and, what is more important, in the interest of the future of the industry in this country, try to make this scheme a great success, which would lead possibly to bigger things as a result of the experience gained. Without

discourtesy, I do not think I need reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking). His speech was really an attempt to preach a funeral oration at a resurrection. To me, it did not seem at all fitting. He seemed to have come to the wrong ceremony. I do not think I need make any point of that.

Sir Joseph Lamb: The Minister has dealt very adequately with the question of-training waiters. I would be glad if he could say that there would be training for the inspectors who are to be appointed. They will have a very delicate operation to perform, not only in connection with the inquiries they will have to make, but also because, under the Bill, they will be allowed the privilege of representation before the courts. They will——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is making a speech.

Mr. Bevin: I assure the hon. Member that the inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour, with the long experience gained under the trade boards, with that background and the background of the Factory Department, are thorough, efficient and courteous people.

Sir J. Lamb: But will they have the necessary powers?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot have an argument with my hon. Friend, but in the Committee stage we dealt with what their powers were. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Major Gluckstein), who also told me that he had to go, tried to show that this was a thoroughly bad Bill; but, of course, with all respect to my hon. and gallant Friend, everyone in his profession knows that, if you are really briefed, if you want to make a speech up one street you can do it very effectively. I have no doubt that he could have proved the merits of the Bill equally well. I was an amateur at the game myself some years ago, and I learned a bit about it. But this is a Bill which has to be worked in a workmanlike way. It is no good trying to pick out one word and setting it against another, and saying that that is bound to produce such and such a result. This Bill sets up a Commission. What is very important, it sets up wages boards. The wages boards will act, I am certain, with com-


mon sense. I think it was Lord Robert Cecil who many years ago was once making a speech in this House—or in the old House—on industrial problems during a great dispute, and I remember being in the Gallery. A great legal luminary answered him by saying, "These industrial agreements are all illogical; they are badly drawn," and Lord Robert Cecil said, "That is why they work." Although that may seem jocular, there is a lot of truth in it. If you had to put these wages agreements to the test of pure legality, none of them would stand such a test; but, like many other things in this country, they work.
I rely mainly on the creative Clauses of this Bill, the Clauses which create the Commission, which create the wages boards, which create the opportunity for the Commission to investigate and report on all these problems. It is the creative side of the Bill which I have striven to achieve more than anything else, and I have striven to make that effective and workable. I believe that as time goes on other Measures will emerge, shaping this great service into what may yet become one of our most profitable industries—profitable in the real national sense, profitable in service, contributing, as I think it must do, to the organised leisure of our country, contributing to the morale of our people after the war, contributing, as I believe it will, by the sources of wealth it can bring to the country. I hope that this Bill will be just the digging-out of the first foundation, upon which a good edifice may be built.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

EVIDENCE AND POWERS OF ATTORNEY BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

SETTLED LAND AND TRUSTEE ACTS (COURT'S GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill will, I think, prove wholly non-controversial. As its Title says, it deals with settled land, and it extends the powers of the courts to sanction expenditure out of capital in respect of repairs, maintenance and management of settled land, subject to rather strict conditions. The first condition is that the person who would normally bear that expenditure, who would be the tenant for life, has to satisfy the court that his available income from all sources is insufficient to meet this expenditure on maintenance or management which would normally fall to be met out of income, and he has to show that that is due to war circumstances. The war circumstance that strikes the eye is the very large increase in direct taxation, but there are also cases where the income of settled estates has been drastically affected by war damage; properties from which rents previously came no longer bring in any rents. In the second place, that stile having been got over, he has to satisfy the court—and this is really the basic principle of the Bill—that the expenditure is in the interests of all those concerned; that it is in the interests of the property and the upkeep of the property, whether agricultural or house property, that this expenditure should be made, and not for some personal extra comfort for himself. Cases have been brought to our attention where undoubtedly, owing to the diminution of the income of the life tenant owing to war taxation or war damage or other war circumstance, not only are the interests of those affected now and hereafter prejudiced, but the national interest is being prejudiced, in that the expenditure on management and repairs, which ought to be met whether the land is agricultural or house property, is not, and cannot be, met.
The Bill has received the general blessing of those who are specially concerned with this branch of the law. I hope that it will commend itself to the House. It is hedged about with fairly strict conditions. The court is entitled


to look at all the circumstances before making an order, but I believe it will meet what one may call hard cases in that the individual is affected, but they are hard cases owing to the fact that property has deteriorated owing to lack of maintenance.

Mr. Hutchinson: My right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that the purpose of this Bill is to enable the capital moneys of settled estates to be applied in certain circumstances to income purposes. The reason why it has been found necessary for provision of this sort to be made is because of the altered position of the tenant for life, arising out of the increased taxation consequent upon the war. The tenant for life is not the only person who to-day finds that he must meet, out of his capital, expenses which would normally be met from income. There are many people, besides tenants for life, who are in this unfortunate situation. The purpose of my intervention is to invite my right hon. and learned Friend to consider whether, at a later stage of this Bill, its usefulness might not be further increased, if the power to expend capital moneys which the Bill confers upon the tenant for life was to be extended in certain directions. My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that, before these expenditures can be undertaken, it is necessary to obtain the sanction of the court. That involves an application to the court. I want to invite him to consider whether, in respect of certain classes of expenditure, it might not be practicable to enable the tenant for life to undertake certain expenditure without the necessity of making any application to the court. I do not suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that power to do that should be unrestricted. I would like him to consider whether, within certain limits and in respect of certain classes of expenditure, the usefulness of this Bill would not be increased if the tenant for life was saved the additional expense of making an application to the court. At a later stage of this Bill we shall have an opportunity to consider matters of this nature in greater detail. I intervene to-day for the purpose of directing my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the matter, in the hope that he will be good enough to give the point some consideration before the Committee stage is reached.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: The only point I want to put to my right hon. and learned Friend is this: By giving the tenant for life power to use the capital sum for improvement, because he has not the available money to do it owing to taxation, are we not putting him into the position where he can still carry on without making the sacrifices that other individuals in the country are called upon to make? Does not this Bill enable him to do what he wants to do at the expense of those who follow him in the estate, in the normal way?

The Attorney-General: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but perhaps I might reply to the point just put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson). I would not like there to be any misapprehension with regard to that suggestion. The answer is "No." The safeguards in the Bill have been carefully designed to prevent the power being sanctioned by the court where the result would be merely to allow the tenant for life to escape the sacrifices which are imposed on everyone else. Undoubtedly there are cases in which the tenant for life, having made the same and, possibly, even greater, sacrifices than have been made by those in an equivalent position with, say, no landed property, is left unable to keep the property in proper repair and to pay the proper expenses of management. The court is enjoined to look at the circumstances of the case, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that the court would not sanction this resort to capital, which they always lean against, if there was any reason to suppose that this expenditure could be made by the life tenant merely making the sacrifices which people with similar incomes are making, and are expected to make, in present circumstances.

Mr. Kirkwood: I would like to ask the Attorney-General a question. Will the tenant be required to undergo a means test?

The Attorney-General: Yes.

Mr. Kirkwood: In the event of the land being reconditioned, does it mean that it would go back to the landlord after being reconditioned by the Government?

The Attorney-General: That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I was about to say that that was outside the scope of this Bill.

Dr. Peters: I think this Bill is very much needed, because, speaking as one who has to deal with estates in my own practice, I know the great need for it. But it creates, of course, a very great precedent, and we must be careful what we do. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) suggested certain circumstances whereby the tenant for life should be permitted to do certain things without resort to the courts. He has not defined what was in his mind, but I would say that it would be a dangerous thing to permit the tenant for life to do certain things without full investigation by the court.

Mr. Hutchinson: My hon. Friend appreciates that the tenant for life may do that in certain circumstances already, under the existing law?

Dr. Peters: I am talking with a full knowledge of the present law, but we are now dealing with a substantial alteration, and I urge the Attorney-General to look carefully into the suggestion which my hon. and learned Friend has made.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.—[Captain McEwen.]

BRITISH ARMY (WOMEN MEDICAL OFFICERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. Bellenger: I wish to raise a matter concerning the Army which I hope the House will take in serious vein, because I want to present it only in that way. It concerns a series of Questions I have been putting to the three Service Departments. As regards the War Office, the answer I have had so far is a legal answer, and I now ask my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to give me what I call a human answer and to ignore entirely the legal side of the matter. It concerns the question of the

routine medical examination—and I want to stress that point—of men serving in the Army, by women medical officers, I want at the outset of my remarks to read a letter which brought this matter prominently to my notice and which I hope the House will agree is a very sensible and reasonable letter. It is from a non-commissioned officer who tells me that he is 40 years of age. I do not know whether he served in the last war but he is a married man with grown-up children. He states that on a certain morning he was detailed to go along with seven other soldiers for what is known in the Army as an "F.F.I.," which means a "Free From Infection" inspection. Service Members of this House will know the type of inspection. It is more than an inspection; it is a parade. In other aspects of our medical life we are trying to induce civilians who may be suffering from venereal disease to go voluntarily to hospitals to be treated for that very terrible disease. In the Army they make a parade of it, and if any man is found to have this disease at these routine inspections, he has to answer questions in company with his comrades at the inspection.
I may say that it is the custom in the Army—and possibly in all the Services, I do not know—for men, when they come back from leave, to have a routine inspection of this nature to see whether they are free from infection. The letter from this non-commissioned officer goes on:
On entering the medical inspection room I was surprised to discover that the medical officer was a young lady of about 24 years of age.
I ask the House to interpret his estimate of the young lady's age with a certain amount of margin, because naturally it is somewhat difficult always to tell the age of young ladies or even old ladies. He goes on:
I stripped to the waist, but when she requested me to drop my trousers, I was so embarrassed I just could not do it.
I suggest seriously that there are many men in the Forces who, whatever the reason may be—it may be the result of an age-long inhibition—would resent such a request as that by a lady, whether a medical officer or otherwise. He says:
I asked t be seen by a male medical officer and was told to return in the afternoon. I saw the male medical officer who refused to examine me. Instead he rousted me in front of the others——


I do not press that part of the letter, although it is strictly against King's Regulations for any officer to admonish a non-commissioned officer before some of his subordinates—
and then threatened to put me on a charge if I did not submit to this F.F.I. inspection by the lady medical officer, in spite of the fact that he was present himself and also a corporal of the R.A.M.C, who was quite capable of carrying out the inspection. Perhaps it would be as well to mention I have three daughters, the oldest being 19½ years of age. Am I in order in refusing to be examined by a lady only a little older than my own daughter?
The Secretary of State has answered that question by saying that if an order is properly given a man must submit—and I believe an officer, too—to a medical inspection whether it be by a male or a female medical officer. Some hon. Members have objected, and possibly still do object, to the point of view I have put, not understanding perhaps the sensitiveness, if you like, of many of these men on the subject of being examined by women medical officers. The argument has been advanced that if a man goes into hospital he is quite often nursed by a female nurse, and he may even be treated by a female medical officer. That is quite true. But if a man is ill or wounded, he is generally in a more or less prostrate condition, and in those circumstances a quite different situation arises from that which arises in the routine medical inspections, which I do not wish to describe in detail, but which hon. Members must know. That is the substance of my argument. It is not that I want to do away with female medical officers. Female medical officers have treated my own children, and both my wife and I have been quite satisfied with their diagnosis and with the care and attention they have given to the children. I speak as a married man and a father. I say quite frankly that I would not obey any order, whatever the result, to undergo such an inspection, even if it were given to me by a superior officer. That is not something I would ever advise members of His Majesty's Forces to do, but on such an occasion as this, I would not obey an order of that sort. It is because I feel so strongly on this matter and because I know that many of my comrades, both officers and men feel the same, that I want my hon. and learned Friend to consider the matter from the humane angle and not on the basis of the legal interpretation of Rules and Regulations.
To those who say that members of the Auxiliary Services, the A.T.S., the W.R.N.S. and the W.A.A.F., have to submit to an examination by male medical officers, I reply that I do not think this is so in the case of these routine inspections. I am given to understand that such routine inspections in the Auxiliary Forces are carried out by female medical officers. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will correct me if I am wrong in that. I am also informed that if members of the Auxiliary Services go into hospital, they may, if they feel strongly on the matter, even ask for the services of a female medical officer. Whether that be true or not, the type of examination which a member of the Auxiliary Services would have to undergo on such an occasion would be quite different from that carried out on men, and I would say that it should appropriately be, and ought to be, carried out by women medical officers in those cases.
I have put similar Questions to the First Lord of the Admiralty and to the Secretary of State for Air. The First Lord of the Admiralty replied that as things stand at present it would be exceptional for women medical officers to examine personnel other than members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and the nursing services, although he went on to say that the legal position was the same as in the Army. The Secretary of State for Air gave more or less the same reply. If the Navy and the Air Force do not press the legal point too far, but work from the angle of expediency, I suggest that the Army might very well adopt the same course. If members of the Armed Forces have any objection to going into a church other than one of their own denomination, they may refuse to enter it, and King's Regulations uphold them so much that men are not forced to go into churches other than those of their own denomination. If a man wishes to refuse to be vaccinated in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, he may do so, and he cannot be proceeded against on a charge. I suggest we ought to put this question of the routine medical inspection on the same basis.
I make this further suggestion to my hon. and learned Friend, and he might bear it in mind when he comes to consider the whole question. I do not think it is desirable to make a parade of these


medical inspections. It happens that when coining back from leave, or even on other occasions, men may be suffering from venereal disease. Just as civilians have some desire to conceal this disease, so do men in the Army, although when they are in the Armed Forces they must not conceal it, and it is a crime to do so. But I think it is carrying things a little too far from the hygienic and health point of view to make a man own up in front of his comrades, because it amounts to that. I suggest that the routine medical examinations might be conducted a little more privately. I know the Army conditions, from experience in the last war and this war, in the ranks and in the commissioned ranks. I know that things are not the same in the Army as in civilian life, but I suggest we have gone a long way from the old traditional Army when the man in the ranks was an unemployed man and perhaps uncouth. We have a civilian Army comprising men of all shades of opinion and all sorts of convictions and views, and we ought to pay some attention to their points of view. When calling up men of the older ages, the fathers of families, it is not sufficient to say, "Well, you are in the Army now, and must submit to Army conditions." I hope the House will agree with me, in regard to the letter I have read, that the father of a family, with daughters himself, is quite justified in saying, "If must go through this form of indignity, something which I would not have to submit to in private life, then make it as private as you can, and at any rate do pay some attention to some of my feelings on these matters."
One of the things that disturbed me most when I enlisted in 1914 was not so much the danger of the whole business as the lack of privacy. The same feeling prevails to-day, and I think we should pay a little attention to these things. This is not a matter we can write off by saying it is prudery. It is not. It is a matter that deeply concerns a lot of men, and I hope my hon. and learned Friend will give me an answer which will satisfy not only my correspondent, and many others who have written to me, not only in the Army but outside, but a large number of men in the Army who are hoping that, even though they may be ordered to do all sorts of things, at least they shall be preserved from this wounding of their feelings.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I think it would be fair to say that there is no officer or man in any of the Services who, in case of accident or emergency, would not be perfectly satisfied to be attended by a female medical officer, and indeed very thankful that there should be at hand someone with medical skill to meet the emergency. But the case the hon. Member has raised is something quite different. This is a case of a routine medical inspection of an exceedingly private nature. I think the serving man is entitled to have his feelings of decent modesty—because that is what it comes to—respected. I do not know why it should not be possible in the Army for men to be given medical examination in circumstances where they are curtained off. Certainly an examination of the character that I think my hon. Friend meant is one where there should be proper privacy. I cannot, however, conceive of there being any circumstances which would make it proper for a woman medical officer to carry out a routine examination of the character to which the hon. Member referred. It is true, of course, that it is a punishable offence to disobey a properly constituted order, but it seems that in this case, if the facts are as stated—and I have no reason to suppose that they are not—a most improper order was given. No senior medical officer has a right in common sense or decency to suggest that a female medical officer, young or old, should carry out a routine examination of this exceedingly private and intimate character as has apparently been done in this case. There are certain diseases—venereal diseases—where it is manifestly undesirable that a female medical officer should carry out the inspection. The question of treatment in hospital is quite a different thing. Nor is it right to say that the sexes are on an equality. They do not happen to be so. It may sound unreasonable, but the fact remains that women in the main prefer to be treated by a male doctor rather than by a doctor of their own sex. Except in cases of emergency or accident, or some case of a non-confidential kind, it is obvious that a man should not be treated, unless he so wishes, by a medical officer of the opposite sex.
The hon. Member raised another point which is worthy of consideration. I think attention should be paid to the fact that in


the Navy, Army and Air Force there are at present men who have come from civil life who have not been brought up, as people who join the services as their profession have been brought up, in circumstances where they have learned to do without the privacy which is the lot and privilege of people in civilian walks of life. To those men life in the Services comes in the nature of a very considerable shock, more honour to them for the way they survive the shock. A man of 40 or 45, the father of a family, should never have been subjected to this kind of blow to his innate sense of modesty. I suggest that a rule might be made that this kind of inspection should not be carried out by any female doctor except in circumstances of the most extreme urgency. It would be impossible as regards certain matters to allow a man to choose as he wished whether he would be treated by a male or female doctor—inoculation or something of that kind. In those circumstances no one but a fool would object to being treated by a female medical officer. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to pay considerable attention to what has been said because a serious case has been raised and it is a good thing that the matter has been ventilated.

Mr. Hutchinson: I, too, agree that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has done a service to the House, and I think to the Army, in raising this matter. I think he was right to raise it on the sort of plane on which he has raised it. He presented it to the House as a matter which was likely to give great offence to the quite natural and proper feelings of a very large number of men serving in the Army. I thought he was quite right in drawing a distinction between inspections of the character which he described and treatment which is given by female medical officers in hospitals. They are two quite different things. I see no objection whatever to normal treatment in hospitals being given by female medical officers. Indeed, in the present situation with regard to medical officers in the Services, it is probably essential that in many cases hospital treatment must be given by female medical officers. But these inspections are an entirely different matter. I agree, too, that we ought to draw a distinction between the ordinary routine examination and a special

examination of the sort to which the hon. Member opposite was referring.
I trust that the Minister will be able to say that all these inspections shall in future be carried out by male medical officers, otherwise I do not think that we can be sure that the natural and healthy feelings of the soldiers in this matter are going to be met. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not listen too long to the advice that he will get from the administrative branches. I know that the tendency is to whisper into the ears of the Minister that it is not administratively practicable to arrange that a male medical officer shall always be in attendance. I am not convinced that that is so. It may be more administratively convenient not to have to discriminate between male and female medical officers at particular stations. That is not the point. This is one of those matters in which the House ought to say clearly—and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will say clearly—to the Department, "We think that this method of carrying out inspections is wrong, and, therefore, because it is wrong, it ought to come to an end, even if it is administratively difficult to bring it to an end." I know that my hon. and learned Friend has a way of taking his own line in administrative matters, and I hope that he will take his own line about this, and not be too much affected by the atmosphere—I sometimes think the rather enervating atmosphere—with which he may be surrounded by his fellow members of the Army Council. I ask him to take the more robust and masculine line in matters of this nature which is taken in the profession to which he and I belong. I hope that he will tell us that, whether it is convenient or not, inspections of the type which have been described will take place no longer.

Mr. Turton: I only want to say a word of caution after the three speeches we have heard. There are numerous people asking for second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth fronts. In all of them male doctors will be required. It will be a pity if my hon. and learned Friend gives any pledge that will mean that there will be too few doctors on the fighting fronts. There was a time, about nine months ago, when we were very short of doctors in a part of our operations, and we had to send from this country a supply of doctors to serve in


the field. If these inspections by female doctors are stopped in all cases, it will deny the troops who are fighting the medical assistance they require. I agree that many soldiers will have an objection to being inspected on routine inspections by female medical officers, and I can see that there may be a case for it, but let us not lay down any rule that will do such grave disservice as to stop the medical profession in the fighting areas having their full complement.

Sir William Wayland: I should like to support the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and I hope that the Minister will not give way. It is a question whether you are satisfied in a great measure with the skill of the woman doctor. I doubt whether there are many Members here who would object to examination by a woman. I should not, if I had confidence in the skill of the woman. We have to remember that we shall want an immense number of doctors, and we should not cut out the woman doctor from the medical examination of the candidate who is being taken into the Army.

Mr. Bowles: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how anybody can have confidence in a woman doctor whom he has never seen in his life?

Sir W. Wayland: I should have confidence in her as long as she had her degrees in the same way as I should have confidence in a man doctor. A great many soldiers have the thought that a woman is not as capable as a man, but in the position we shall have to face we shall need every doctor and many more. Therefore, it is in the interests of the Army that we should put the female doctor wherever possible on a par with the male doctor.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I want to deal with one particular point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), with regard to the necessity for male doctors when we enter on large-scale operations. I have some little experience of this matter, having been in the Army and in Army hospitals. There is a great difference between a woman doctor or a nurse treating a wounded man and a man deliberately going up to a woman doctor for a medical inspection of the type necessary to pass him into the Army and

to grade him into his category. That is the objection of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). The War Office are asking for something to be done that has been opposed by the whole family life of this country in the past. There is no doubt about it, there is a recognition of the difference of the sexes, and you are placing the average soldier in an invidious position. It is a position which the War Office has recognised in many cases, even in the field, by issuing out certain juices and medicines to the soldiers who are actively engaged. My hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary, from his own large experience, knows that this is a fact that has been recognised in the past. We are not objecting to women being employed to assist wounded soldiers or men weak from wounds. We are objecting to the cold-blooded examination by women, to their undertaking the thorough examination which is necessary in order to grade men in their proper categories. On the wider aspect, there is no opposition to the female doctor or nurse, but on the narrower point of the medical examination it would be a bad thing for the country if examination by women doctors was tolerated.

Mr. Driberg: I feel that, however unpopular the case may be, I must say a word for what seems to me the rational as opposed to the purely emotional side of this argument. I am sorry to have to differ from my hon. Friends on this side of the House, but when they make the distinction between the routine inspection and the treatment in hospitals for actual diseases, for which they say soldiers will be willing to be treated by women, I do not think it is a valid distinction. There are many diseases, including perhaps complications of venereal disease, for which men will have to be treated in hospitals, and if they started saying that they would not have women doctors for this or that, it would create an impossible situation.
We must keep some sense of proportion. The first consideration, surely, is that diseases, and in particular perhaps venereal disease, about which we have been talking in this House recently, should be prevented and cured; and the second consideration is the acute shortage of medical man-power. We have been clamouring and pressing from this side of


the House for pensions appeal tribunals, and we have been told that the delay in setting them up has been chiefly caused by the shortage of doctors. Surely medical man-power, whether male or female, must be used in the most economical way possible. To my mind, when we accept women in a profession, we must treat them in an absolutely cold-blooded way as equal professional partners: we cannot introduce, or allow to remain this emotional sort of complex about them—which is really going part of the way to the Nazi idea of sending women back to the kitchen and not allowing them a public career at all. We must try to see this thing rationally and coolly: even if there is a sensitive minority of people who object, I think they have far worse hardships than this to put up with in the Army.

Earl Winterton: I want to put in one word of warning. Of course, it would not be in Order to discuss pending legislation on the Adjournment, but I think I shall be in Order if I say there is considerable talk of a State medical service, and I would solemnly warn my hon. Friends on both sides of the House that this is a most inappropriate moment for differentiating between male and female doctors and their duties, even if this particular case may be a good one, because it is certain that no State medical service can ever be created except on the basis of complete equality betwen the sexes. I also want to protest, not because I have ever been at the War Office or have had anything to do with the War Office, against the kind of bromide, if I may use the word, which is constantly used by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and was used by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) about the Army Council. We are always told that they are an enervating and impossible body. No, I am not going to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I heard what he said. I want to say publicly that there is no controlling body of any Army in the world which has achieved such remarkable results as the War Office and the Army Council have achieved in this war. They have produced the finest Fighting Force in the world, the Eighth Army.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Speaking from my experience as a doctor,

I can say that among men there is a tremendous resentment against being examined by women. It is no use the hon. Gentleman opposite talking about putting emotion on one side. That emotion is in our very soul, and I approve of the point of view of the soldier which was put by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). We cannot get rid of that emotion. On the other hand, it is a curious thing that the majority of women, although they do not like being examined at all, are quite able to accept being examined by men. Hon. Members opposite spoke about the shortage of doctors and the second front. In the last war when we were losing men at a rapid rate in France it was quite common for military camps to employ civilian doctors for this purpose, and there is not the slightest reason why that should not be done in this war. I think the Secretary of State will probably have to consider extending the services of civilian doctors in camps in this country when second fronts are opened in Europe, they can easily perform this function, and not allow men to suffer the indignity of being examined by a woman in cold blood. An hon. Member opposite says, "nonsense," but those who have a streak of masculinity in their nature would not agree that such an examination was desirable. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who so often entertains this House, will allow other people to say a quiet word, I shall be very pleased.
We have been told to-day that treatment in hospital is a different matter from what we are talking about. It only differs in this sense, that if a man is very ill then he does not mind being attended by a woman doctor, but if he is not feeling too ill then he has that natural resentment which he tries to overcome. It is only when illness overpowers everything else that most men are willing to put themselves into the hands of a doctor of the other sex. That is my experience. I should like to say I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, and I think that in bringing forward this matter he has done a service to the Army and to these men, and I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to tell us that he is going to do away with this undesirable kind of examination of men in cold blood by women doctors.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Financial


Secretary will not take too much notice of the red herring of the skill of the doctor, which has been drawn across the path. That was never mentioned by the hon. Gentleman opposite when he raised this question. Everybody accepts the fact that doctors are skilled if they have passed their examinations, whether they are male or female. What we are objecting to is the infringement of the susceptibilities and decencies of life.

Earl Winterton: Oh.

Sir J. Lamb: My Noble Friend is always willing to make interjections. Will he allow others to express themselves as well?

Earl Winterton: I suppose I can say "Oh."

Sir J. Lamb: My Noble Friend says it so often.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): Will hon. Members please address the Chair and not each other?

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. Is there anything disorderly in saying, "Oh"? It was all I said. If not, may I ask whether you will protect me from the attack of the hon. Gentleman opposite?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There would be no need for me to intervene if hon. Members restricted their observations to "Oh."

Sir J. Lamb: I should be the last person to wish to criticise my Noble Friend, because it is not my duty to do so. I was referring to the matter before us, and that is the susceptibilities of people in this country, and I believe I have a right to say that in the vast majority of people in this country there is still a strong feeling on this matter of sex. It is true that there are some people who do not have that feeling. They consider themselves very advanced. I am not one of them, and I think the vast majority are on my side. This may sound irreverent, but in hot countries how is the female doctor going to be dressed? What is sauce for one is sauce for another. I hope we shall remember that the Army to-day is very different from the Army of peace-time. It is composed of those who have been trained in civil life, and perhaps have had a point of view which is different from that of some who have spoken to-day. There is undoubtedly a sensitiveness among

people on the differences between the sexes and about the decencies of life, and we ought to preserve it as far as we can. At any rate it is not our duty as a House of Commons to impose upon people an infringement of those things which they hold as being sacred.

Dr. Morgan: As one who has had considerable experience in all branches of medicine—general practice, hospital, Army, consulting practice and now industrial diseases—I should like to say that I think the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas)—and here is where doctors differ—is quite wrong in his approach to this question. It is not a question of any infringement of common decency, or want of appreciation of sex differentiation, nor of any violation of the ordinary amenities of civilised life.

Sir J. Lamb: Was the hon. Member in the House when the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) made out his case?

Dr. Morgan: No.

Sir J. Lamb: I thought not, because the one point which I——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot carry on a series of questions or a discussion.

Sir J. Lamb: May I ask one question, Sir? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I have not asked the question yet.

Dr. Morgan: Unfortunately I was not in the House, because I was called to a hospital.

Sir J. Lamb: That is not the question I was going to ask.

Dr. Morgan: But I knew what was going to be said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. I have a fair idea what was said. It is very strange to the trained medical mind that the treatment by nurses of men of all grades, shades, colours and races——

Sir J. Lamb: That is not the point.

Dr. Morgan: It is the point. It is a question of medical examination. I have seen it done in the Colonies, in Great Britain and on the field of battle. It is simply a question of whether the ordinary soldier should be examined by a trained, qualified, registered, lady medical prac-


titioner as part of her Army medical duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "In front of other people?"] It does not matter about dozens of other people. I have seen male medical officers examine females in front of other females. These things are done quite unemotionally by the trained doctor. We are trained in medicine and that is part of our training in medicine.

Mr. Davidson: I am sure the hon. Member will recognise that the point worrying us is not the effect upon the trained female doctor but the effect on the untrained, ordinary man and woman in the street.

Dr. Morgan: I am sorry this heat should be engendered over a very simple problem. The hon. Member suggests that because the trained medical man approaches a problem in a certain way, it influences other persons. It is suggested the approach of a doctor, whether he is a fussy, emotional, confused doctor or a calm, trained, unemotional person, with a view to diagnosis and the proper medical examination, makes a complete difference to the patient. Sex does not matter. From my point of view there is nothing in this case at all. The female medical officer has her duty to do and she does it simply as part of her duty. She has no emotional reactions herself.
Let us take the other point, which is whether a male soldier being examined by a lady doctor has an emotional reaction. The ordinary, common or garden normal individual has no reactions of any kind, or, if he has, suppresses them immediately. It is conventional for a man, if he feels that way, to do so; but there is a minority of individuals, a very small proportion, who cannot. I tackled the matter a long time ago, and I put the proportion at 2 per cent., males and females. They do not like medical examination, or being in a state of comparative nudity, with people of the opposite sex. It is a very small proportion of people, but if people who have certain definite psychological reactions really object upon the first examination, or even on the second examination, an appeal can always be made. A statement has been made that men may suffer from certain diseases due to adoration at the shrine of Venus. [Laughter.] Yes. I am referring to venereal disease, and am simply using

the name of the goddess instead of using the adjective. I am not pretending to be learned but am only using the ordinary parlance of medicine. It is suggested that a woman medical officer should not be able to examine a man in that condition; but men do it, in the opposite direction. Is there an emotional reaction? Has the medical officer a reaction? These things are common in ordinary society. We are not savages. We have certain suppressions and certain conventional approaches to problems.
This whole thing is an exaggerated problem. It does not arise in common medical practice or in hospitals. It is absurd to say that it will arise in a parade. If hon. Members are asking for special exception for certain men who are moved in certain ways, I hope that the Minister will decide to hold his ground and insist that, upon grounds of equality, training and public decency, the medical officer should be allowed to perform her duty and the men in question stand up to the ordinary common discipline of the Army and the routine examination.

Captain Godfrey Nicholson: I do not agree with the way in which the hon. Member has just approached this matter. It is not a question of abnormal people. There is a real case. Nobody in his senses would say that any man objects to being nursed by a woman or being examined by a woman doctor when he is ill, or having a routine examination of heart, throat, lungs or feet by a woman doctor. It is merely a question of fact and of whether or not a considerable minority—personally, I think they are a majority—of men in the Army object to being examined in a most personal and intimate way for venereal disease by a woman. Although the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) gave us a little pontifical lecture about the Army Council—if the Noble Lord objects, I will give way——

Earl Winterton: I only referred to the Army Council because an hon. Member opposite had made moving references to them, and I was endeavouring to reply to them.

Captain Nicholson: Whatever the advice given to the Minister or to the Secretary of State, I feel that it is a confession of gross inefficiency if, except in very exceptional circumstances, men in the Army


are ordered to submit to this most personal examination by a woman. I certainly should dislike it exceedingly, and almost every hon. Member in this House would dislike it exceedingly also. I should not disobey, but I should dislike it exceedingly. The Minister has control of the administrative side of the Army, and I hope he will most certainly lay it down not only that it should be avoided if possible, but avoided as an order, except in cases of actual illness when a soldier has to be treated. I hope he will be aware that most of this Debate has been sidetracked by hon. Members.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Captain Nicholson: I feel certain that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) who raised this question represents the views of the country as a whole and of the Army.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The very interesting discussion to which the House has listened has shown a somewhat wide divergence of opinion on the problem which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). I think, however, there will be general agreement when I say that our nation owes a real debt of gratitude to the large number of women doctors who have come forward and to-day are rendering the most important service to our cause. The House knows perfectly well that we have a large number of mixed regiments of anti-aircraft artillery, and it is obvious that we require the services of a considerable number of women doctors to cater for the needs of the women serving in that branch of the Army. My hon. Friend raised a particular case. I, of course, have not had the particulars, so I am not in a position to deal with that particular case to-day.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not ask my hon. and learned Friend to do so, or I should have given him previous notice. I want him to deal with the general issue.

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend wants me to deal with the general issue, but he has given particulars to the House rather

suggesting that one or more officers have committed an act, certainly to which he takes exception, in forcing a man who has written to him to undergo a physical examination when there was a male medical officer available. If he wants me to deal with that case, he will have to supply me with particulars of it. I think the House should appreciate also the difference of the position in the Air Force and the Navy in regard to the use of women medical officers, because, as I have already indicated, the problem that applies to the mixed regiments of anti-aircraft artillery does not exist either in the Navy or the Royal Air Force. My hon. Friend referred to the medical inspections which have hitherto taken place on a routine basis. The House will be interested, perhaps, if I tell them that these medical inspections to which my hon. Friend referred are designed mainly to detect cases of skin disease or infestation as early as possible, and they have been carried out as a routine on all personnel returning from, or proceeding on, leave, or when men are being transferred from one unit to another in the United Kingdom. In view——

Mr. Hutchinson: Is it not the case that the routine examinations do involve examinations of the character described by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Henderson: If my hon. and learned Friend will be patient, I shall come to that point. In future such inspections will take place only when the medical officer in charge of troops or the senior administrative medical officer considers it necessary. Such inspections are really required only when there is reason to believe that cases such as those to which I have referred are present in a unit, and that the sufferers are not reporting sick. Fortunately, the experience of the War Office during the last three years has shown that, with the modern Army, this very seldom happens. The inspections, as my hon. Friend said, are known in the Army as F.F.I. inspections—Free from Infection inspections. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that in future they are to be called health inspections. It is true, as my hon. Friend indicated, that these inspections involve a complete examination of the individual soldier. That, of course, accounts for the request that was made to the man concerning whom my hon. Friend has raised this discussion.
In future, when such inspections are required, soldiers and auxiliaries will have the right to be examined by medical officers of their own sex, if they so desire it. If this is not immediately possible, the full inspection will be postponed until it is possible. In the interim a partial inspection will be carried out, at which men will be stripped to the waist, and women will wear the equivalent of a bathing costume. In addition, at all inspections a third person of the same sex will be present. In the case of women, this will normally be an A.T.S. medical orderly, and in the case of men, an R.A.M.C. orderly. Hon. Members have referred to the fact that these inspections take place at what is called a parade. The medical authorities of the Army have been concerning themselves with this aspect of the problem, and it is proposed to do what is possible to encourage the conception that the accommodation provided for the inspection of numbers of men at one time shall be such as to produce, as far as possible, the atmosphere of the clinic, rather than that of a parade. In view of what I have said to the House, I hope it will be generally agreed that the War

Office have taken a very reasonable and commonsense attitude.

Sir A. Southby: Will it be an instruction that, so far as is reasonably possible, examination of an intimate character should be done in privacy, and not with other men in the room?

Mr. Henderson: I think that that is involved in what I said.

Mr. David Adams: Is the same privilege to be extended to women who require examination?

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend probably missed what I said. I tried to make it clear that auxiliaries—that is the term for members of the A.T.S.—and male soldiers will have the right, if they so desire, to be examined at the full inspection by doctors of their own sex.

Mr. Bellenger: With the permission of the House, I would like to say that I am deeply grateful for the complete and satisfactory manner in which my hon. and learned Friend has dealt with the question.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.